12-12-1995 Council MinutesAPPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JANUAKY S,jt)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF A REGULAR MEETING
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 12, 1995
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on December 12, 1995, 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilman Dan Slater.
1.2 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT -
None 1.3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting
November 28, 1995.MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Slater AYES -
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ACTION: Approved.1.4 PRESENTA
TIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/
INTRODUCTIONS Request for immediate action: Letter
from Michelle Gregory and Sandy Strait to recognize and support Army B
Company being deployed to Bosnia.MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Murphy AYES -
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater
Moved that the need to discuss this item
arose after the posting of the agenda.Mayor Coontz recognized the following speakers:Michelle Gregory,
349 N. Renee Street, stated the
City of Orange would be the first city in the country to adopt an Army company
and would provide community awareness for much needed individual troop support. Army B Company
will be the first deployed to Bosnia. Other cities will be encouraged to adopt
companies.Sandy Strait, 5104 East Avenida Palmar, felt this
was an important peace mission;recognition and individual support during deployment to Bosnia
was crucial.PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS (Continued)
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Spurgeon AYES - Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to recognize
and support Army Bravo Company, 4/12 Infantry Regiment, Unit 23715, because, at
this time of year devoted to peace and goodwill, it is fitting to recognize those in
the service of the United States who are on the mission to Bosnia to protect the peace
for all.1.5 PROCLAMATIONS -
None 2.CONSENT CALENDAR TAPE
288 The items on the
Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one roll call vote unless members of the City
Council, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.2.1 Declaration of
City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council agenda ofa regular meeting of
December 12, 1995 at Orange Civic Center, Main Library, Police facility at 1107 North
Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board; all of said locations being in the
City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before
commencement of said regular meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of
Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the
Office of the City Clerk.2.2 Request Council
confirmation of warrant registers dated November 28 and December 1,1995.ACTION: Approved.2.
3
RESOLUTION NO.
8558 A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a certain public work
and improvement. (AZ100.0, AGR-2404)Bid No. 945-
31, Baxter-Griffin Co., Inc.Traffic
Signals and Highway Safety Lighting at Lorna
St. at Via Escola - signal installation Lorna St.
at "E" Street - signal installation Lorna St. at
Serrano Ave. - signal installation Lorna St. at Taft
Ave. - signal installation Collins Ave. at California/Lynn
St. - school flasher ACTION: Approved.PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
2.4 Request Council approve turn restrictions on Sacramento St. at KateUa Ave. and traffic
signal modification to provide protected left-turn phasing at KateUa Ave./Handy St.
as recommended by the City Traffic Commission. (S4000.5.3.
3)FISCAL IMPACT: Traffic signal modification cost estimated at $50,000 would
be considered as a part of the 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program. All cost
associated with the Sacramento St. turn restrictions would be included in the SR-
55 freeway
improvement project.
ACTION: Approved.2.5 RESOLUTION
NO. 8564 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing
appreciation to Detective Curt McMiUan and commending him for more than twenty-one
years of service to the City of
Orange. (C2500.
K)ACTION: Approved.2.6 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
FROM: (C3200.0)a. Raymond'
s Wheel & Brake
b. Javier Vasquez
FISCAL IMPACT: None.ACTION: Denied claims and referred to City
Attorney and Adjuster.2.7
RESOLUTION NO. 8560 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting
the completion of a certain public work and improvement; Bid No. 945-09,
SP2940 Santiago Canyon Road between Hunters Way and Newport
Boulevard. (A2100.0,
AGR-2301)
Contractor: Sully MiUer ACTION: Approved.
2.8 RESOLUTION NO. 8561 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange
finally accepting the completion of a certain public work and improvement, Bid No.
945-14, AD86-02 (City of Tustin)Jamboree Road
Medians and Slopes Landscaping. (A2100.0, AGR-
2382)Contractor:
Pima Corporation -
CITY COUNCIL MiNUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
2.9 RESOLUTION NO. 8562
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of
a certain public work and improvement; Bid No. 956-03, SP3111, Cypress Street
between Palm Avenue and Walnut Avenue. (AZlOO.O,
AGR-2489)Contractor: R. J.
Noble Co.
ACTION: Approved.2.10 RESOLUTION
NO. 8563 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the
completion of a certain public work and improvement; Bid No. 956-05, SP3109,
Lemon Street between Chapman Avenue and Maple Avenue and Maple Avenue between
Lemon Street and Atchison Street. (
AZ100.0, AGR-2497)
Contractor: Hillcrest
Construction Inc.ACTION: Approved.
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)2.11 Request Council approve Engineer's decision to disallow contract time
in excess of the time specified in the original contract and reject the formal written
protest from R&L Sewer
Inc. (AZI00.0, AGR-
2495)FISCAL IMP ACT: None.The Public Works Director explained that the contract
provided for a 45-day construction period. Following award, the contractor requested 90
days to complete and offered no substantiation. The contractor chose not to back
out. This request impinges on the bidding process and grants an advantage. The contractor was
not
present to speak
on this Issue.
MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Murphy AYES - Murphy, Barrera,
Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater ACTION: Approved.2.12 Request Council approve the recordation of Tract Map No. 14061,
the Developer having met all required conditions. (
T4000.0, TRM-14061)Location: Mabury Ranch area at extension of Mountain Ave.,
adjacent to Santiago
Creek Developer: Brandywine Development
FISCAL IMP
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved.
2.13 RESOLUTION NO. 8566
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, expressing appreciation to Gary
D. Johnson of the Orange Public Works Department and commending him for more than
thirty-three years ofloyal and dedicated service. (C2500.
M)ACTION:
Approved.2.14 Request Council authorize the award of Bid No. 956-16, Construction of
the SycamorePark Concession/Rest Room Building, to Marcus P. South and Assoc., Anaheim,
CA in the amount of$193,000 and reject all other bids. (AZI00.
0, AGR-2526)FISCAL IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in
Account Number 510-7021-485100-
0525 (portola School Ball Field).ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute
on behalf of the City.2.15 Requestan allocation of$23,501.l0 from Proposition
172 funds, Account No. 120-3021-481200-2662 for the final payment to the
County of Orange for construction of Fire
Station 6. (Location: Manchester Complex) (OC1300.0)FISCAL IMP ACT: There are adequate funds
available in
the Proposition
172 fund for
this purpose.ACTION:
Approved.MOTION - Slater SECOND - Murphy AYES - Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Item 2.11 was removed and heard separately; all other items
on the Consent Calendar
were approved as recommended.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM
MAYOR COONTZ - None 4. REPORTS FROM
CCUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITfEES, AND COMMISSIONS
TAPE 400 5.1 Appointment of Sandy Levine to the Community Video Advisory Board, term
to expire 12/31/97. (OR1800.
0.28)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz Spurgeon
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Approved.6.ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTS
TAPE 407 6.1 This
date has been set for a public meeting on a petition by the City of Orange to consider the formation of
an Assessment District to levy an assessment upon the properties within the District to finance
a portion of the public inlprovements (flood control facilities). District is generally located west
of the intersection of Tustin Street and La Veta Avenue and is named Sycamore Crossing. The
developer is Van Daele Development Corporation. The total amount of the assessment is $
1,200,000 including construction and incidental expenses. (T1100.0.1,ASD-95-1)
The
Public Works Director reported that this was the first of two public meetings for the Sycamore
Crossing Assessment District to provide acquisition of flood control improvements in the
Santiago Creek Channel. The total assessment is $1.2 million divided among 160 units. The boundaries
of the district are limited to the Sycamore Crossing project and do not include any other
parcels. No written protests or requests to speak have been received.Mayor
Coontz announced this was the first of two public hearings related to the proceedings for Assessment
District No. 95-1, Sycamore Crossing. The City Clerk stated that public hearing
notices were mailed according to law to the property owners within the district and the proposed
boundary map was filed with the County Recorder.
MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, questioned the number of units. The number was clarified as
160.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
Mayor Coontz stated that no action would be taken at the first public hearing. The second public
hearing is set for January 9, 1996, at 7:00 p.m.
7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8.
LEGAL AFFAIRS 8.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 20-95
TAPE 522
PAGE 6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.06 of the Orange
Municipal Code and approving the reclassification of property situated north and south of Kat ella
Avenue between Glassell Street west to the City limits. (Z1500.0, ZCG-
1177-95)Zone Change 1177-95, Applicant:
City
of
Orange
MOTION SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater That Ordinance No. 20-95 have second reading waived and be adopted, and same was
passed and adopted by the
preceding vote.8.2 ORDINANCE
NO. 21-95 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.18
to the Orange Municipal Code relating to the Commercial Recreation
District. (A2500.0)Amendment 4-95,
Applicant:
City
of
Orange MOTION
SECOND AYES
Barrera Murphy Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater That Ordinance No. 21-95 have second reading waived and be adopted, and same was
passed and adopted by the preceding vote. (
A2500.0)8.3 ORDINANCE
NO. 23-95 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 13.80 et
seq., of the Orange Municipal Code relating to the regulation of
cable
television
franchises.
MOTION SECOND
AYES Spurgeon
Barrera Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater
That Ordinance No. 23-95 have first reading waived and same was set for second reading by
the preceding
vote.9. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY 10.ORAL PRESENTATIONS TAPE
604 Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer Street, stated that the Orange Taxpayers filed ballot arguments
for the March 29, 1996, election. Just prior to the 5:30 p.m. filing deadline, a staff member
delivered PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Continued)
an argument to the City Clerk and Ms. Walters was upset that this was done at taxpayers'
expense. She felt the proponents should have delivered it.
The City Attorney indicated that staff has a big role to facilitate getting all the material together
for the election. There is certainly no legal prohibition against the City facilitating all of the things
that have to be done to get the matter ready for the ballot, including a City employee taking a
piece of paper from either side of the ballot argument and handing it to the Clerk.
Nick Ioll, 6231 E. Mabury Avenue, commented that Resolution No. 8557, Section 1, authorized
the Mayor and Councilmembers to file written arguments in favor of the two measures. He asked
why the Council did not follow through by submitting arguments. Mr. Lall felt money was
wasted by putting measures on the ballot that have failed in past elections.
Mayor Coontz indicated there was interest in the community to submit arguments in favor.
11. RECESS
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater The City Council
recessed at 5:06 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a. Conference with
Legal Counsel - existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a):City
of Orange vs.
James Daum, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 73-86-30.Structural Steel
Fabricators, Inc. vs. City of Orange, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. G015019
REMOVED FROM
THE AGENDA) b. Conference with Legal Counsel - anticipated litigation.Initiation oflitigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) (one potential case).c. Conference with
Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:City Negotiator: Personnel
Director.Employee Organization: All
Employee Organizations (List available in Personnel Office).d. To consider
and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City
Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of
the matters will not be considered in Closed Session.7:00 P.
M. SESSION The City Council
reconvened at 7:07 p.m.TAPE 944 PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
12.1 INVOCATION
Pastor Eric Kaelberer, Immanuel Lutheran Church
12.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilman Dan Slater.
12.3 ANNOUNCEMENTS - None 12.
4 INTRODUCTIONS The
City Manager introduced the new Finance Director Helen Bell.12.
5 PROCLAMATIONS - None 12.6
PRESENTATIONS - None 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.1 APPEAL
NO. 425, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2103-95, SUEDE BILLIARD/RESTAURANT,
MEHDI RAFATY: TAPE 1028 Conditional Use
Permit 2103-95 was denied by the Planning Commission on April 3, 1995 and appealed
to the City Council. The public hearing for the appeal has been continued from July 25,
1995 and October 24, 1995 to this date. (A4000.0, APP-425)
Conditional Use Permit 2103-95 is a request to modifY a previously approved Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 2012-93) to allow dancing and live music entertainment as an accessory use
to an existing billiard/restaurant facility upon property located at 1988 North
Tustin Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301.APPELLANT STATES THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR
THE APPEAL:It is our belief that the Planning Commission was not completely informed of all
the facts. "The Community Development Director reported that this item had been continued twice
in order to resolve transfer of ownership of the business. The intended buyer is not
purchasing the business; the original applicant is selling his interest to his partner; and the partner does
not want to pursue the application. Therefore, it was recommended that the application
be denied.MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE
PUBLIC HEARING.Speaking
in opposition:Tom Everling, 1893 Nordic Place, lives within 150 yards of the business and stated
when music was allowed previously noise and debris from parties had been
a problem.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Ron Martin, 1895 N. Shattuck Place (sent a letter of opposition)
THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Spurgeon Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to
deny Appeal No. 425 regarding the property located at 1988 N. Tustin Street.13.2
RENEWAL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH CABLEVISION OF
ORANGE: TAPE 1118 Time set
for a public hearing to consider a renewal ofa cable television franchise to Time-Warner Entertainment!
AdvanceNewhouse Partnership, a New York Partnership, dba Cablevision of Orange. (
FllOO.O, FAZI00.0, AGR-2351.A)
The Assistant City Attorney reported on the process, issues and City's regulatory authority. He
summarized the background of the cable franchise and discussed the following issues:
Communications Support Group, City consultants, noted that the Federal Communications
Commission must-carry rules had filled the basic service tier with several channels of
limited general appeal. Customers complained about high cost and unwanted channels in package
tiers.The overall performance of Cablevision was good. Primary areas of concern were:
increasing channel capacity to provide more programming; ensuring that access to adult entertainment
was restricted; and flexibility for customizing programming mix. Seven franchise requirements
were recommended by the consultant: 1) system rebuild; 2) customer service standards; 3)
technical standards pursuant to FCC policy; 4) emergency override capability; 5) public access
equipment and facilities; 6) public access training; and 7) assistance to educational organizations.
Previous issues raised by the City Council included: 1) blocking of sexually explicit programming;
2)televised City Council meetings; 3) length of franchise term; 4) construction of an
institutional network; and 5) regulatory
environment.Pursuant to federal law, the City is limited to reviewing four criteria when determining
franchise renewal: 1) substantial compliance with the franchise; 2) quality of service including response
to complaints and level of programming; 3) financial, legal and technical ability to provide
service;and 4) ability to meet future cable needs of the community. The 1994 audit by the
consultant found that Cablevision substantially complied with the franchise terms. Federal law does
not allow the City to consider the mix of channels; there is no more regulatory authority over
cable content than over any other media. One-third of all channels are required to be
dedicated to
must-carry channels.Council discussion ensued regarding: projected date for televising
Council meetings; equipment specifications, cost and operation; must-carry
channels and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Kristy Hennessey, 154 N. Glassel/, General Manager, Cablevision of Orange, indicated lead time
on equipment purchase would be 30-60 days and installation within 30 days.
Equipment specifications will be decided by the Council. Regarding religious programming, Faith and
Values and EWfN are satellite delivered channels and do not fall within the must-carry rules.
A petition was received for EWfN and strong interest has been expressed for Faith and
Values. Cablevision conducted two surveys and requests were received for Science Fiction, History, ESPN-
2, and the Learning channels. Groundwork for rebuild has started and Faith and Values is
being looked at because it
represents all denominations.Chris Leist, 250 Novara, Long Beach, Production Coordinator, Cablevision
of Orange, stated the equipment has been chosen. He verified it will take approximately 30
days following franchise approval to receive the equipment and an additional 30 days for
installation and training.The Assistant City Attorney reported that: the consultant agreement for
operators could be available in February; a side letter relative to televising Council meetings
indicates Cablevision will provide $100,000 of equipment and handle maintenance and repair; if
religious programming falls within the local broadcast definition, then it
will be must-carry.Mayor Coontz emphasized for the public that the City Council had
no
control over cable programming.MAYOR COONTZ
OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
The following people spoke:Dick Pugsley, 18022
Oakridge Drive, Santa Ana Carol
Safarik, 1989 Greengrove Street Pamela
Pratt, 1143 E. Oakmont Kathy Beckman,
4530 E. Wickham Avenue Doug Thomson, 729
E. Del Mar Avenue Daniel Levine,
237 E. Palmdale Avenue Kathi Davis,
3644 Green Garden Lane Their concerns
were expressed as follows:Mr. Pugsley represents the LDS church on Orange Cares Board and stated they
were willing to work with Cablevision to help inlplement the Faith
and Values channel.565 signatures in favor ofEWfN have been submitted to Cablevision and
an additional 700 signatures were presented to Kristi Hennessey. Some subscribers wereunaware of
Cable
vision's survey.Cablevision had been a good neighbor; however, does not address
concerns of community.Council has a role to review quality and level of programming, even though
they cannot control;there is no Christian programming at present and strongly
in favor ofEWfN.Encouraged availability ofthe system forlocal origination and/
or
community access
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Pornography is still a problem on cable and complaints have not been followed through; look at
must-carry foreign language channels before approving franchise; both Faith and Values
and EWTN should be
carried.No equitable dialogue between Cablevision and the citizens. Urged Council not to
approve franchise ifCablevision would not carry programs overwhelmingly requested by
citizens.Mayor Coontz asked if there were programs currently available under community access
which would fit under public access. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that local
origination programming is funded in part or full by the cable operator, but would include programs
funded by the Community Video Advisory Board. The City can chose to change from local
origination to public access at any
time.The Assistant City Attorney reported that the Council adopted an ordinance in February
1995 requiring Cablevision to effectively scramble all sexually explicit programming unless requested
by a subscriber over 18 years. Federal law allows this type of programming to be aired on
any channel between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.
m.Kristi Hennessey explained that the foreign language channels were broadcast channels
which viewers would receive without cable and fall under the must-carry laws. Complaints
would need to be referred to the Federal Communications Commission. Cablevision has received
a petition for Faith and Values and additional requests were indicated by
survey response.THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS,MA YOR COONTZ CLOSED
THE
PUBLIC HEARING.The Mayor and Council recognized that there is strong sentiment in the community for
some kind offarnily value channel. Councilmembers further commented as follows: residents were
urged to contact Cablevision relative to programming desires; the new franchise will offer
a wider programming base allowing for channels reque~ted by citizens; continued scrambling
of sexually explicit programming is expected; Cablevision was urged to work with the
Community Video Advisory Board for input; and concern about Cablevision's property at Palm
and Lemon.RESOLUTION
NO. 8565 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving a cable
television franchise agreement between the City of Orange and
Time-Warner Entertainment-AdvancelNewhouse Partnership, a New York Partnership,
dba
Cablevision
of
Orange.MOTION
SECOND AYES
Slater Barrera Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater That Resolution No. 8565 as introduced, be adopted and same was passed and adopted by
the preceding
vote.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to
approve the letter agreement with Cablevision of Orange to provide equipment and maintenance for
televising City Council meetings.The City
Council recessed for 5 minutes.13.3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-95, ZONE CHANGE 1175-95, AMENDMENT
TO CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN, CITY OF ORANGE: TAPE 3417
Time set for a public hearing on petition by Chapman University to consider a proposal to develop
a parking lot to provide additional parking for future expansion plans. This project requires the
removal of existing structures. (C2300.E, GPA-
1-95)General Plan Amendment 1-95 will change the existing designation
from Low-Medium Density Residential, 6-15 dwelling units
per acre, to Public Facilities.Zone Change 1175-95 is requested to redesignate
6 parcels from R-4 (SP), Multiple-Family Residential (Specific Plan) to P-I (SP)
Public Institution (Specific Plan). Five parcels are to be redesignated from R-
4 Multiple-Family Residential to P-I (SP) Public Institution (Specific Plan).Chapman University
Specific Plan Amendment will include the project area into the Specific Plan boundary and
amend three provisions contained within the Specific Plan as follows: 1) change Resolution No.
7233, Specific Plan Chapter 3.0 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 5.0 Design Guidelines in order to
allow street front setbacks ofless than 20 feet along the west side of Orange St. and the
north side of Sycamore Ave. for the open parking lot development; 2)change Resolution
No. 7231 and Specific Plan Chapter 3.0 (Development Regulations) to modifY the provision regulating the
maximum density and location of modular units in order to allow 6 units north of Walnut Ave. and
6 units south of Walnut Ave.; and 3) change the language of Resolution No. 7231 to
allow the Specific Plan boundary to change prior to acquisition of the entire block on the west side of Orange
St.; i.e. if the parcel located on the southwest comer
of Walnut Ave. and Orange St. is not acquired by Chapman University.The subject parcels are
located on the west side of Orange St. between Sycamore and Walnut Avenues: 404,412,414,420,428,
432,434,444,452,460,468,476 and 490 N. Orange St.The
Community Development Director reported that Chapman University owns 10 of the 11 parcels and is in the
process of acquiring the last parcel. Written consent to the three applications has been received from
property owners and the proposal was discussed. A parking lot is planned to allow parking for a
total of 240 vehicles. The parking situation is reevaluated with each new proposal.
It is questionable whether this addition will guarantee enough parking for additional construction. The Design Review Board
has held the required meetings on 10 of the 11 lots. A traffic study has determined
that traffic volumes will increase but not enough to meet warrants for signalization. One
recent issue
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
University and the owners of the parcel support the application and wish to move forward. .
Therefore, all 11 parcels are recommended to be added to the Specific Plan and zone change.
The Planning Commission recommends approval with 14 conditions.
Applicant Presentation:
Gary Brahm, Vice President-Finance, Chapman University, 333 N. Glassell, stated
the University has been working to improve the parking situation, indicating that parking was rated
as the most improved, but lowest rated student service in a recent survey; therefore,
significant improvements efforts are still being
pursued.Robert Mickelson, J 2 J W. Rose, Consultant for Chapman University, is working with
Chapman to design various alternatives. He clarified that there will be a total of 244 parking spaces.
The Planning Commission conditions are acceptable with the exception of Condition 4 of
Planning Condition Resolution No. 53-95. He requested that the first sentence be revised
eliminating the words "development proposals," and inserting "amendments to the Specific Plan," and
that the last sentence be eliminated, "The update shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director." Staff is in agreement with
these changes.Carol Harnack, 490 N. Orange Street, stated she was the owner of the final lot and
had worked with Chapman University and the City in order to achieve a balance of the needs of the
City and Chapman and the historic nature of her home. The Harnacks are in support of
the applications.MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE
PUBLIC HEARING.The following spoke in favor of
the applications:Scott Parker, J 58 Monterey Road, President-Elect.
Chamber of Commerce Ken Denson, 333 N. Glassell, Student Body
President, Chapman University Travis Osborne, 2307 Cayuga Avenue, Placentia,
Associated Students Director
of Commuter Relations Suzanne Foxworth, 209 Larkwood, Anaheim, Vice President of
Associated Student Senate Shannon Tucker, 556 E. Culver, President, Old
Towne Preservation Association Fred Smoller, 630
W. Palm, #22 M J. Martini, 638
E. Walnut Avenue Their concerns were
expressed as follows:Chamber of Commerce Board unanimously endorses proposal. It will be good
for Chapman, the City and businesses
in the area.Lack of parking is a major complaint from both
students and residents.No. 1 concern of commuter students is parking issue. Chapman has taken
steps to resolve parking problems and, by adding this parking lot, the number of students parking
on City streets
will be
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12,1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Very difficult to find parking unless arrival is early in the morning. Additional parking spaces
will be an incentive for students to purchase parking permits knowing there will be space
available.
Old Towne Preservation Association has worked with Chapman to find alternatives, specifically
for the Harnacks. Chapman has made a better effort to work with the community and hopefully
relations will be more positive for any future growth.
Interested in Chapman's success but also preservation of Old Towne. Chapman has shown
respect for individual property rights, Old Towne and the political and legal process.
Supportive of the aim, but distressed about the method; referred to problems during the Planning
Commission public hearing; everything was not in place; quoted the Planning Commission staff
report relative to the Specific Plan document needing update; disagreed that Chapman be
responsible for updating the Specific Plan.
Speaking in opposition:
Carole Walters, 534 N Shaffer Street, stated Chapman is causing problems by adding buildings
without sufficient parking and the City allows it. Questioned how much parking will be lost
because of the wellness center and new buildings scheduled for East Orange Street. Felt there
should be a limit to growth; Chapman does not care about the neighbors. There is a pedestrian
crossing problem on Center Street. Pointed out there was an error in notification relative to the
Planning Commission hearing.
John Aleccia, 510 N Orange Street, very much for the parking lot, but questioned Chapman's
future expansion. This will alleviate parking now; however, he stressed parking should be built
prior to any additional expansion. Requested clarification regarding modular units north and
south of Walnut.
Mr. Mickelson agreed that the Community Development Director should not be responsible for
the Specific Plan update and also that Chapman not be solely responsible. A draft would be
submitted to City staff, reviewed by neighbors, forwarded to the Planning Commission for public
hearing and then to the City Council for ultimate update. The Planning Commission conditioned
that the wellness center proposal be submitted for site plan review and this has been agreed to by
Chapman. This lot could provide some parking for future expansion. Chapman does have
another building under consideration for a business center; however, parking will be assessed at
that time. Mr. Mickelson clarified that the modular units will not be located on Orange Street
south of Walnut because Chapman does not own property there and it is not in the Specific Plan.
The Community Development Director commented that the certified list of property owners
supplied by the title company for noticing at the Planning Commission hearing deleted a few
properties. This was corrected and all property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the City Council public hearing. In addition, the Planning Commission required duplicate noticing
by Chapman.
Councilman Murphy asked about initiation of updates to the Specific Plan. The Community
Development Director indicated that Chapman, the City Councilor a property owner with
PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
authorization from the City Council may initiate an amendment. Mr. Mickelson commented that
because the Specific Plan is a zoning document it falls under state guidelines. Proceedings may be
initiated by a property owner or someone designated on their behalf, by the City Councilor the
Planning Commission. Mr. Martini read from the Specific Plan stating "certain changes to explicit
provisions in the Specific Plan may be made administratively by the Community Development
Director subject to appeal of the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council. .."
THERE BEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE HEARING TO
THE PUBLIC.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy Slater
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1469-95.MOTION SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Coontz
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Approved General Plan Amendment
No. 1-95 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No.PC-51-95.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Barrera
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Approved Zone Change
No. 1175-95 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-52-95.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Coontz
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Approved the Amendment
to Chapman University's Specific Plan as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC-53-95 and amending Condition No.4, page 3, to read: "Prior to the
submittal of applications for future amendments to the Specific Plan, Chapman University shall
do a comprehensive update of the Specific Plan for the sole purpose of incorporating all conditions
specified in City Council Resolution Nos. 7231, 7232, and 7233, and consolidating repetitive
language and improving the document's organization."13.
4EMINENT DOMAIN BY CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY TAPE 5808 Request
for City Council review and consideration of a Resolution consenting to the use of eminent
domain to acquire property located at 490 N. Orange Street. (C2500.M.14)PAGE
16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Community Development Director reported that Chapman University had requested consent
to use eminent domain powers to acquire property at 490 N. Orange Street as allowed by the
Education Code with findings by the City Council.
Councilman Spurgeon asked if this would set a precedent. The City Attorney stated that findings
in one case of this type would not be a precedence for other projects. The eminent domain power
rests with Chapman University; however, the City Council would have to consent taking each
project into consideration and making certain findings according to state law.
MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Speaking in favor:
Robert Mickelson, J 2 J W Rose, Consultant for Chapman University, this property is a key to the
parking lot project. The situation is unique and the home will be preserved and rehabilitated.
Carole Harnack, 490 N. Orange, stated they were in agreement with the use of eminent domain
in acquiring their property and will directly benefit.
Speaking in opposition:
Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer Street, was concerned that the neighbors be protected in the
future with regard to eminent domain. She felt all the information should be obtained before
Council vote. Chapman does not listen to the residents or take comments.
M J. Martini, 638 E. Walnut, indicated that Resolution No. 7233, page 3, Land Use No.2, states
that "the college shall pay fair market values for the parcels. Fair market value is assured since
homeowners will not be compelled to sell to the college. "
Kay Martini, 638 E. Walnut, felt there was fear of eminent domain and was glad that Chapman
did not have the power without the checks and balances of City Council approval. She stated
there were four requirements to be met in order to use eminent domain and questioned whether
this one parcel was needed for "public interest and necessity. "
Councilman Spurgeon asked about the effect of third party involvement in the property. Mr.
Mickelson stated it was a private issue involving the Harnacks and felt it would resolve itself.
Also, Mr. Mickelson indicated there was a demonstrated public need for the property and the
Harnacks were in support of this action.
THERE BEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
RESOLUTION NO. 8567
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MiNUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange consenting to acquisition of certain
property by eminent domain proceedings by quasi-public entity, Chapman
University.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES Slater
Barrera Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater That Resolution
No. 8567 as introduced, be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.
14. PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENT - None 15.ORAL PRESENTATIONS
TAPE 19 (TAPE 2)Barbara DeNiro, 1118
E. Adams, asked about paramedic fee billing and if residents are billed again if they
don't pay. She also asked when undergrounding of utilities will take pl<lce on Tustinand Katella.The
City Manager
stated that there is a 60-day turnover on water bills and during that period opportunities are
made available to subscribe. In the future residents will be able to subscribe throughout the
year. Staffwill check to find out if residents are rebilled if they don't subscribe.The Public
Works Director indicated that an undergrounding project is underway by Edison at Tustin and
Katella and overhead facilities should be removed by the end of 1996.Carole Walters,
534 N Shaffer, commented about public notification concerning projects at Chapman University
and stated the Committee of Concerned Citizens at Chapman Neighborhood does not
receive notices. She felt that Chapman does not listen to residents and this was a problem needing
attention by the City.The Community
Development Director reported that the Planning Commission applied a condition relative
to public hearing items that Chapman give public notice in addition to noticing done by
the City to all property owners within 300 feet of the entire Specific Plan boundaries.Juan Pablo
Nieblas, 224 N Olive Street, stated the law against riding bicycle on sidewalks was unfair and
unconstitutional and asked that it be repealed. He commented that uniformed officers ride on
the sidewalk and felt everyone should be able to do so because it was safer.16. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Barrera
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz,
Spurgeon, Slater PAGE 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
16. ADJOURNMENT (Continued)
The City Council adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
DECEMBER 12,1995
1" /{
JOANNE C. COONTZ
MAYOR
I' .1
i ...-( / /"PAGE
19