10/10/2000 - Council Minutes - CC Minutes Reg Meeting
APPROVED 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 heroism during an apartment fire in Orange.
Mayor Coontz presented a proclamation to Dr. Eddie Hernandez, Chancellor, Rancho Santiago
Community College District and Dr. 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 abused
children. She was a leader of men and women and her passion for life set a wonderful example
for others. 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. Mayor
Coontz asked the City Attorney the correct procedure. The City Attorney indicated the letter
could be read into the record under public comments, however, the Council could not take any
action on the request.
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 the City Council.
PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
Accordingly, I respectfully request that during the public hearing portion of the 4:30 and 7:00 pm
regularly scheduled sessions of the City Council meeting today, that you read into the public
record the applicant'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 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 October 10, 2000 at Orange Civic Center, Main
Library at 101 N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the
Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board, and summarized on Time-Warner
Communications, all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely
accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of said
regular meeting.
ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a
public record in the Office ofthe City Clerk.
3.2 Request Council confirmation of warrant registers dated September 21 and 28,
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 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved Settlement Agreement with Mr. Lundquist and authorized the City
Manager to execute Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The actual cost of the agreement will not be known until the
plywood is removed and an estimate is made of the necessary work. Funds are available
in Account No. 740-1412-433100, SelfInsured Liability Fund. If the cost of the repair
work exceeds $30,000, it will be brought back to the City Council, but the cost is
expected to be less.
3.6 First Amendment to Attorney Services Agreement with Woodruff, Spradlin &
Smart for personnel legal services. (A2100.0 Agr. 2886.A.l)
SUMMARY: Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart Law Offices was retained to represent the
City in two wrongful termination lawsuits. Legal costs have exceeded the City
Manager's authority.
ACTION: Approved First Amendment to Attorney Services Agreement with Woodruff,
Spradlin & Smart and authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
The City Attorney is requesting that an additional $60,000 be approved for continued
legal services.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Account number 100-0301-426100-9865,
Personnel Legal Services.
3.7 First Amendment to Berryman Henigar contract in the amount of $10,000 for
GASB 34 Infrastructure Valuation Services. (A2100.0 Agr.3S81.1)
SUMMARY: The City has previously contracted with Berryman Henigar for the
completion of a pavement condition survey to be completed throughout the entire City.
This amendment would require additional services to place a valuation upon these City
street facilities in order to meet the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statement Number 34.
ACTION: Approved the first amendment for Pavement Management Consulting
Services to Berryman Henigar in the amount of $1 0,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Account 100-5001-426700 (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 Drain Improvements, approval of plans and specifications
and advertising for bids. (C2S00.M.17)
SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been completed for the storm drain
construction on Fernside Street from Brentwood Avenue to Crystal View Avenue, on
Crystal View Avenue from Fernside Street to Glenside Street, and on Glenside Street
PAGE 4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
from Crystal View Avenue to 180 feet northerly. The project is ready to be advertised
for bids. The estimated construction cost is $328,680.00
ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for the
CDBG storm drain construction project.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program and
available in the following account: 310-9645-483400-1819 (Detail 16130) $435,000
(Community Dev. Block Grant)
BIDS
3.9 Reject all bids received for Bid No. 001-08, and request authorization to re-advertise
the project. (S4000.S.3.3)
SUMMARY: The City received 8 bids for Bid No. 001-08 (Traffic Signal & Striping
Modifications at various locations). Staff recommends that all bids be rejected and the
project be re-advertised.
ACTION: Rejected all bids received for 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 in the following accounts:
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
$264,115.24
3.10 Projects No. 2974 & No. 2975 - Approval of plans and specifications and
authorization to advertise for bids the seismic retrofit of the City Yard Garage and
Warehouse buildings. (P2S00.0.2)
SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been completed for the seismic retrofit of the
City Yard Garage and Warehouse buildings. 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 cost is $875,340.
ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for the
seismic retrofit of the City Yard Garage and Warehouse buildings.
PAGE 5
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 Clerk to
execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted and available III the Capital Improvement
Program in the following account:
530-5011-483400-5105
$200,000
(Drainage Districts)
PAGE 6
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 CONSENT CALENDAR
PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ
4.1 Board of Supervisors new proposal regarding Musick Jail negotiations and remote
jail site (three top sites are within the sphere of influence of the City of Orange on the
City's eastern borders).
Mayor Coontz announced if it was not for newspaper articles she would not know what is being
planned for the City's sphere of influence. During the first part of last week there was an article
concerning the jail issue. The Mayor received a call from Supervisor Coad's office indicating
there was an amendment to their agenda for their October 3' Board of Supervisor's meeting.
This went out to the other board members from Chairman of the Board, Supervisor Smith. Most
of the offices did not receive this information until Friday and it was a surprise.
Mayor Coontz attended the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 3'd and spoke. The agenda
item was a request from the cities of Lake Forrest and Irvine who have been involved in the
Musick jail issue and tried to push forward issues for their own benefit. Mayor Coontz indicated
she did not know why they wanted to form a new committee because there is an existing Blue
Ribbon Committee. The City Manager is a member of the Blue Ribbon Committee and they
were told they could not reveal their decisions and recommendations. 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 being
formed to supplant the other one. 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 there
should be representation from Santa Ana and Orange, 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 not
been notified of the first meeting.
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 of
time before the court decision because the judge may decide the environmental impact report is
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 to
discuss this with Council.
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 the
Statement ofInvestment Policy (SIP) for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (ORI800.0.27.16)
The Finance Director presented the report.
SUMMARY: Per recommendations from the Investment Advisory Committee and the
Investment Oversight Committee, it is proposed that several changes be made to the City's and
Redevelopment Agency's Statement of Investment Policy. The recommended changes include
increasing our authorized investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and revising
the language relating to Money Market Funds to be consistent with the State of California
Government Code. Additionally, as a result of having our policy reviewed and certified by the
Municipal Treasurers Association of the United States and Canada, more definitive language was
recommended for annually reviewing financial institutions and investing in Government
sponsored investment pools.
Mayor Coontz thanked the Finance Department and the committee.
Councilman Alvarez indicated he was pleased with the chapter spelling out the prohibitive
investment vehicles and practices.
RESOLUTION NO. 9339
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving and adopting a Statement of
Investment Policy and repealing Resolution No. 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 Investment Advisory Committee. The City Treasurer responded the members of the
Investment Oversight Committee are: City Treasurer, City Manager, Finance Director. The
Investment Advisory Committee members are: Jim Hanson, Hal Jackson and Charles Simons.
Ex-officio members are City Treasurer and the Finance Director.
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
suggested they be invited to the next Council meeting so they may be acknowledged for their
participation.
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 Code Section 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 was instructed
to work with Ms. Turner in resolving these issues. (C2S00.N.4)
Mr. Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury, appreciated the Mayor's comments regarding Beverly Nestande,
and suggested an appropriate way in which to honor her would be to name Rock Creek Park after
her.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-00, ZONE CHANGE AND PRE-ZONE
CHANGE 1204, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1278,
THE IRVINE COMPANY - SANTIAGO HILLS II
Time set for a public hearing on petition by The Irvine Company proposing to develop 1,746
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, Medium Density Residential and Open
Space to Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential and Open Space. Also to change the Orange General Plan from Public 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 and pre-zone the entire site to PC (Planned
Community) Zoning.
The property is generally located east of Jamboree Road, west of the Eastern Transportation
Corridor and south ofIrvine Regional Park (in addition, 25 acres of the 494 acres is located west
of Jamboree Road and north of Chapman Avenue).
NOTE: Supplemental EIR 1278 was prepared to supplement final program EIR 1278 for this
project.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Mr. Stan Soo Hoo, Community Planning Manager, 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 and Jamboree, with a plan to develop approximately 1746
housing units.
In 1989 the City adopted the original East Orange General Plan (EOGP), which encompassed
approximately 7,000 acres. The original theme in 1989 was to divide the total acreage into four
PAGE 11
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
PAGE 12
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 14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The Director of Public Works reported the construction at Santiago Canyon and Cannon is
scheduled for completion in FY 2006/07, which was contemplated in the CIP for a project about
half the size indicated here. 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 Canyon
Road and what will occur if these improvements are not made; and what volumes will be added
with this development.
The Director of Public Works reported the present volume on Chapman is at 25,000 cars per day
at Crawford Canyon, dropping to 18,000 and 13,000 further east. Capacity for a 4-lane highway
is approximately 25,000. Current volume on Santiago Canyon Road is 23,000 at Cannon
dropping to 15,000 further east. Capacity is also approximately 25,000. TAPE 2850
Mr. Kendall Elmer, representing Austin Foust & Associates, Traffic Consultant, reported the
development would increase traffic on Santiago Canyon Road by 3,000 cars per day over the
existing 23,000 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 cars on
Chapman Avenue). He also noted it was his understanding that capacity for these types of 4-
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 Neighborhood Committee
Alan Burns, 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 Irvine
Company numerous times and have been very involved in reviewing and critiquing the EIR.
- 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
the refurbishing of existing schools.
- 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 and the community to relax standards so that Santiago Canyon Road can be
pulled back from impacting Irvine Park, without impacting safety. She also recognized the
need to improve already impacted intersections at Chapman and Prospect and at Cannon and
Santiago Canyon Road.
- Representatives from St. Joseph Health Systems asked that affordable housing opportunities
be provided with this project. Suggested that five acres or 150 units be dedicated for
affordable housing as a condition of approval.
- Mr. Bennyhoff suggested developing a plan for the entire 7,000 acres; and also recognized that
water issues still need to be addressed.
The Chamber of Commerce was in support of new housing which is needed for increasing
employment and suggests a commercial center in the next Phase.
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 entire area; and supported the suggestion to develop a plan for the entire
7,000 acres.
Those speaking in opposition:
David Newton, 9823 Brier Lane, Cowan Heights, Santa Ana, asked that noise concerns be
addressed by the noise consultant.
Red Bauer, 11062 Meads Ave., Orange Park Acres, asked about the trail undercrossing to Irvine
Park, which is necessary as part of the overall trails network. It is a widely used trail system, and
Council needs to consider the unsafe aspect of trying to cross the streets.
Councilman Slater asked Mr. Bauer if he was referring to the proposed crossing near the Holy
Sepulcher Cemetery. Mr. Bauer indicated the one near the cemetery is necessary also, 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 member of the Eastern Transportation Corridor. 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 not
comparable in size to those being removed. This does not represent a reasonable range of a
variety of size of oak trees.
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)
Erich Figley, 1822 Sirrey Dr. Cowan Heights
Juan Pablo Serrano Nieblas,
Ellen Toth, 20091 E. Clark, submitted a petition requesting postponement
Richard Siebert, 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.
Petition dated October 2000, containing approximately 49 signatures, was submitted.
The following comments were expressed:
- This project will have significant County wide impacts with irrevocable wildlife damage.
This is one of the few rural areas left in Orange County.
- 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. It needs 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 and
actually provide more water to that Reservoir. If water is released, it is by choice _ choice by the
County. They do so now for mosquito purposes.
Councilman Alvarez asked about the storm runoff water. What will its impact be to the wetlands
east of Jamboree as well as to Peters Canyon Reservoir. Because of a retention basin, is it
supposed to be capturing material and essentially screening out water before it gets to those
areas?
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, Irvine
Park and Peters Canyon Reservoir, they normally would not divert water but let it go its normal
direction. They might detain it but not redirect it. However, they have been encouraged by the
County to do a diversion. The Irvine Park's facilities are undersized and there is a concern for
the habitat in Peters Canyon Reservoir and the intent of the plan is to take the runoff from their
project and also from easterly of the Corridor and release it at a controlled rate and have the low
flows diverted into the wetland areas. That helps replenish and provide water to the wetlands
and the wetlands also provide a water quality function in that they help clean out the low flow
water entering into those wetlands.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Mr. Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust & Associates, corrected an earlier statement about traffic
volumes. 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 requirement
that the applicant pay fees pursuant to the City of Orange TSIP Program, 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 egress
locations, 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 analysis
essentially did not identifY significant impacts east of the site. 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 the one
highest hour, 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 Bonterra Consulting, the
environmental consultants. There was an agreement executed by the City, Bonterra and The
Irvine Company outlining the responsibilities of the consultant, to be responsible exclusively to
the City; and Mr. Soo Hoo personally oversaw the work of the consultant.
Councilman Alvarez asked why so many mitigation measures needed to be adopted if the project
was done correctly in the 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 required that they
be included as measures. 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 also the question
of having them underneath Chapman Avenue. Because there is such a substantial elevation
difference between the north and south sides of the roadway, this would create an extremely long
tunnel and there would also be extensive impact to the wetlands in 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
PAGE 22
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
sure it is implemented. It is usually included in the construction specifications so they are
contractually responsible for implementing it.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TAPE 2600
Mr. Dan Young asked to clear up a misunderstanding, explaining that he is not aware of any
comment made by The Irvine Company that a hydrology mistake was made in Santiago Hills
Phase I. In response to citizen requests for a continuance, he suggested that by moving forward
with the approval process, they can start to address the issues raised at the meeting. Once this
process is approved for example, they will do a detailed hydrology study based upon an
approved zoning plan and EIR that has the mitigation measures that tells them how to go about
doing that plan. The applicant will return with information about water quality, water shed, the
run off management plan, the impact on the habitat, and how to pull all that together. This
information has been asked for by the County and imposed on them by the Planning
Commission, but the time to do this is at the tract map phase when they have the specifics and
engineering. This will address many of the concerns made.
On the issue of the trails, they will continue to work with the Trails Committee and the
community on an overall trails plan, as they already have a working relationship with these
groups. They will work with the City and community in developing an update of the Master
Plan of Trails for their portion of the property. They will be proactive in working through the
remainder of the 7,000 acres and have already moved this project through the process with any
and all groups that were present. There were public hearing processes that everybody was
invited to and they will continue to do this. The issues raised will be addressed prior to
construction and will be a matter of public hearing and additional environmental review. If
allowed to move forward they can get the answers to the community's questions.
They will work with the City on creative and innovative ways to extend Santiago Canyon Road
with as little impact as possible, 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 purchase
it. 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 had option
agreements for nearly 20 years with the College, 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 23
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 24
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
PAGE 25
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 when
the houses will be built, and asked if these improvements can be moved ahead?
The City Manger pointed out the City is not prepared financially to move the improvements
forward.
The Director of Public Works reported the City does not have the flexibility to move the projects
forward, as they are heavily committed to grant funds, and the current schedule is the most
optimistic there is.
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 Chapman
Avenue to hear, 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 provide
double-paned windows, air conditioning and buffers for certain homes. This type of impact
needs to be addressed during the tract map phase. 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 26
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 these
three circumstances, that if you can supplement the EIR - basically take the information that is
necessary to make the EIR adequate - that that is an acceptable approach, by just having the
additions and changes and do a supplementation that the EIR is adequate. That allows building
on the previous documentation. In this case, final EIR 1278 looked at the East Orange General
Plan area at a programmatic level, looked at a wide range of alternatives, looked at cumulative
impacts on a large scale, and it allows this project to be more focused on supplementing the
information that is necessary for the Phase II area.
Mr. DeBerry explained the initial EIR addressed and reviewed a project which had significantly
more and greater environmental impacts than what is proposed. Therefore, the City, along with
the environmental consultant, looked at the new project and determined that the impacts were
either less or the same than the impacts that were reviewed in the EIR back in 1988. That is why
the supplement was chosen.
Ms. Brady indicated when they looked at the changes, the elimination of 1.5 million square feet
of mixed use, providing more open space. Basically, the type and intensity of the impacts were
going to be less because the project proposed less development. 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, that is not reality. The City needs to learn from past mistakes and do a better job than
what was done in the past. He appreciated the efforts of the community, in particular from
Shirley Grindle and Bob Bennyhoff who have both been involved in East Orange land planning
for a long time. They both know land planning and understand the East Orange area and are
aware of realities. While not representing all of East Orange, they have tried to bridge a gap and
force some of the changes that have to be made. We need to move to the next level where some
of these specific issues will be addressed, and move ahead with a vision for the entire area and
not just for Santiago Hills II.
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
Game and the Nature Reserve of Orange County, and some of the 68 mitigation measures
include plant surveys and inventories of various kinds of birds. These things will take place
before any bull dozers set foot on that property. He has always voted independently and always
on a project by project basis, and to clear up a statement made earlier, reiterated that he has not
received any funds from the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has provided an opportunity
for all members of the community to meet with them and he thanked the members of the
community who have spent a great deal of time meeting and negotiating with The Irvine
Company. He particularly noted the efforts of Shirley Grindle and Marilyn Ganahl in preserving
open space, and how they have reviewed and scrutinized every detail of this project. Every
development project should have the same amount of review, 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, it was
noted the $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 of the
commercial site, because as development occurs east of the Corridor, a viable commercial center
and quality sports park can be developed at that point. He agreed the City needs to continue to
work with The Irvine Company and look at the remaining 6,500 acres and ensure that future
development is appropriate for the entire community.
For the record, Councilman Slater wanted to make sure the City requests their desire to preserve
the oak grove at the entrance to Irvine Park and instruct staff to seek solutions in cooperation
with the County and The Irvine Company to avoid, as much as possible, the impact to this row of
oak trees, including the elimination of the sidewalk on the north side and possibly eliminating the
median in the middle of the road so there is not too much grading and also consider a split level
road. That road should be, if at all possible, aligned slightly to the south so there is as little
impact as possible to Irvine Park and the ridgeline to the south side of it.
Councilman Alvarez agreed the City will be looking at this project very closely from now on.
At this level, the information is more general but as the project moves forward, it will get more
detailed and more specific. There will be more opportunities to mold this project into something
beneficial for everyone. 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, specifically improving
intersections prior to the Santiago Hills II project or the connection of Serrano Avenue; 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 of projects
such as the sports park. 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, "we got
the best deal given the constraints of an election calendar". He was not comfortable voting on a
project that anybody infers is tied to the upcoming election. Therefore, he recommended they
continue this project to get answers to some of the questions, as he did not see a rush to approve
it now. He would like to support it too; and he looks forward to growth - but responsible
growth. 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 in
order to ensure that some of these additional questions get answered.
Mayor Coontz stated it shouldn't matter if it is an election year or not, and the Council always
has to answer to the community, no matter when it is. The first General Plan is being looked at
as not being adequate, which can always be done in hindsight, but there was a great deal of work
done on the first Plan. During the Phase I discussions, she tried to get the School District
involved, which wasn't happening; so she helped develop the joint use school which has turned
out to be very successful.
She further stated that, some of the issues important in developing the first General Plan were
economic issues, circulation, police and fire service, design guidelines, architectural styles,
environmental issues and the involvement of the community. When it was decided to necessitate
the economic policy, because it was realized that residential doesn't pay for itself, that was for
the entire acreage, not just for one part of it. We are focusing on one part of it, and she would
like to have the confidence that in the balance of the original 7,000 acres, they can address that.
She pointed out they have never before requested a developer to provide the City with an
economic benefit. There needs to be a focus on the balance of the development with the
economic policy that was originally established.
Other issues unresolved in the original plan were trails and Irvine Lake. The ownership of the
Lake involves The Irvine Company and two other agencies; 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 thoughtful
comments. This initial phase has taken a great deal of time and energy and a great deal of time
and energy will also be devoted to the balance of the project. The City is more sensitive today
about issues such as traffic, 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 resultant
economic shortfall. 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 going
forward, 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 in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 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
Resolution No. 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 alignment of
Santiago Canyon Road, near the entrance to Irvine Park and staff is instructed to work with
the County and The Irvine Company to seek solutions to avoid, as much as possible,
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 amount of
grading), or designing a split level road. Also, the road should be aligned slightly to the
south in order to minimize visual impact to Irvine Park and minimize disturbance to the
existing ridgeline. These measures are to be investigated with the understanding that traffic
safety must not be 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 to
including design guidelines.
NOTE: Councilman Murphy abstained because although he is not against the project, he still
feels there are a few issues that need to be addressed and can not support it tonight.
The City Attorney explained a Resolution and Ordinance will be brought back to the City
Council, confirming their actions of this meeting.
Mayor Coontz requested after the Minutes are completed, a staff recap be provided to ensure all
points are included in the Resolution and Ordinance.
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
CITY CLERK
OANNE COONTZ
MAYOR
PAGE 32