Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1996 PC MinutesU4; LX-(~ e .;)S()(), ~.~ ~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange March 18, 1996 Monday. 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attomey, Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: PRESENTATION A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange commending William Cathcart for his outstanding service to the City of Orange as a Planning Commissioner for the past five years. He has had to resign from the Commission due to a conflict schedule as he pursues an education towards a new career. Chairman Bosch read the resolution and noted they would regret not having him on the Commission. They appreciated his technical wisdom and quality of service, as well as his sense of humor. Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adopt Resolution 13- 96. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 3/ 4196 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of 3/4/96 as recorded. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The Chair requested item 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed separately.2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 6-96 - METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (THE MILLS COMPANY)Proposed demolition of the existing "City Shopping Center" and construction of a new shopping center to include restaurants, retail and cinema uses. The proposal is similar in size to the existing shopping center and includes reconstruction of the existing center's parking lot. The site is located west of The City Drive and north of Metropolitan Avenue.NOTE:Mitigated Negative Declaration 1497-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 This is a major project and has required the assistance of a number of staff members and consultants. Mr. Jones introduced some of the individuals who have been working on the proposed project: Representing Planning stall, Chris Cames and Jerry Haag; Public Works, Bob VonSchimmelmann and Dennis Schmitz; Environmental Consultant, Dwayne Mears; Traffic Engineer, Joe Foust; and others who will be called upon to answer questions or concems. Elizabeth Link was also present from the Mills Corporation. Staff has received a number of comment letters to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission received copies of all the comment letters stall has received, along with stall's responses to those letters. A few letters were received this afternoon; stall does not have written responses, but they reviewed them with the environmental consultant and he is prepared to respond to each comment so that the Commission will be comfortable that all information has been received and adequately responded to. Based on staff's review of the comments received and the discussion they have had with the consultants, he was confident the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the issues raised, and would recommend the Planning Commission certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate, following the receipt of the reports and public testimony. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. The proposal being considered is the demolition of the existing City Center shopping center, and the construction of the new City Center Mills Project. The applicant is proposing to demolish 812,000 square feet of the previous shopping center, financial buildings and outbuildings that exist at the City Center, and are proposing to construct 771,000 square feet. They are constructing less than what is being demolished. The applicant is retaining TGIPs, EI Torito and the One City Center Tower and theater complex an the west side of the project. The applicant's proposal is to build a mixed use entertainment, retail center. The proposal includes a 3D- theater cinema complex located just to the norih of the One City Center Tower. It also includes improvements along The City Drive, widening it by 10 feet that will include the addition of a new left- turn lane into the project. It will include a new parking lot and intemal circulation system for the project. The proposal includes a recommendation far a 90 foot building setback from the centerline of The City Drive to allow for possible future expansion of The City Drive without necessitating the removal of buildings. The final project, including the buildings to be retained, will be approximately 1,190,000 square feet. The project is predominately one-story buildings with a two-story building in the middle of the complex. It will be an open air center. The proposal is a permitted land use in the City's General Plan and it conforms to the floor area ratios allowed in the General Plan. The proposed center conforms to the City's Zoning Ordinance C-2 district development standards in regard to building height, building size, parking provided, landscaping and building setbacks. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared that considered the environmental impacts of the proposal. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and discussed with the applicant some improvements to the landscaping and site layout for the parking lot areas, but overall approved the conceptual plans, and recommended approval for the site plan,building elevations and landscaping plans. The City's Stall Review Committee has reviewed the project numerous times and have worked with the applicant, and recommends the Planning Commission approve the major site plan application for the following reasons: That the mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration significantly reduce the impacts of the project. The proposal complies with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed plan meets or exceeds the Development Standards for the City. The proposal is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Area project plan.Elizabeth Link, One City Boulevard West #1700, represented The Mills Corporation. The project as it exists today is a challenge with the fact it has been vacant for some time. Many developers have looked at the site and tried to make things work. The Mills Corporation has come up with a plan that is going to be very successful. Their planning process has been going on for over three years and they have considered many different options. They have determined the existing size where the retail is about 811,000 square feet is the "magic" size. That size will be successful at this location. In December they were looking at a larger project, but determined since then the smaller project would be better. Visibility is very good and the freeway access is wonderful. They have received a strong interest from tenants and they hope to get approval so they can start their project in May. They showed the full size renderings of the project, showing an architectural urban style combining the Fashion Island and City Walk projects to give this project a comfori and ambiance feeling like Fashion Island, along with the excitement of City Walk.They want to use a few strong colors to make a statement and to let people know this Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 center. They will be pedestrian oriented; the open air center will provide an outdoor experience that will be unique to Orange. Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center, said they are the author of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. He reviewed the major points of both documents: Errata and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. He didn~ spend a lot of time with the Errata. It started with any changes they had to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and on the very first page there were a couple of edits to two mitigation measures, #16. and #22. He didn~ go over any details of those because they were minor changes. From that point an, from the heading, Initial Study (Page 1), there were changes, additions, minor changes to the document that represent the Initial Study that supports the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There were minor comments and edits -- things they found since looking at the document subsequent to its publication. They have provided information on any typo's that were found and in some cases, they added new sections or new paragraphs to provide clarification. Their conclusions remain the same; they haven~ changed anything In terms of the level of impact associated with the project. They haven~ gone from non-significant to significant Impacts. They still say all of the impacts that were found are either not significant or they are insignificant after mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study document contains all the written responses they have received as of last Friday. A couple of new comments have been received since then. Responses have been received from: The Southern Califomla Association of Governments, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, the City of Anaheim, and Paul Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer with Linscott, Law and Greenspan. He summarized the SCAG letter. They basically reiterated any regional policies that would apply to this project and then, in staff's opinion, looked at whether or not the project is consistent with that regional policy. Those policies dealt with whether the project is consistent with employment forecasts, whether it represents infill developments, where infrastructure is already present, whether it would encourage transit use, whether it is located within an activity center and whether the project would minimize impacts. Those are all regional policies they looked at to compare the project against. It's a long letter, but the summary on the last page says the project is consistent with the regional goals and policies adopted by SCAG. The next letter is from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency: The first comment has to do with the extension of Metropolitan Drive, beyond The City Drive, up northward to Orangewood. The City should have a financing mechanism and should impose mitigation measures on the project to finance that extension. Response: Although Metropolitan Drive is on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, it may never be constructed. The City, in recognizing that, has adopted a program to widen City Drive from six to eight lanes. This project has been conditioned to dedicate an additional 10 feet to allow that development to go forward. The second comment is on the second page and has to do with whether the project will have adequate parking. Joe Foust will address this in greater detail. Response: The project will be parked according to City code and the County, in its comment, agrees it will be a satisfactory condition. Comments 3 and 4 have to do with water quality and essentially providing clarification involving the Water Quality Management Plan that has been proposed. In their response they acknowledged that clarification. The project will have to satisfy the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The comments from the City of Anaheim --Sportstown - very minor points of clarification. The third comment has to deal with the City of Anaheim requesting the traffic analysis use official CMP traffic counts as opposed to the numbers used, which are more recent numbers, but not the "official" numbers. Response: The resulting ICU's for existing conditions, using the official numbers, are shown with the numbers the City of Anaheim had requested.The changes are not significant and the conclusions of the analysis remain the same. The comment from Paul Wilkinson was not a written response; it was an oral comment he made, questioning whether or not the project would have a net increase in traffic compared to the existing center If it were to be occupied?Response: The trip generation summary that goes through the comparison shows they don~ have a net increase in traffic compared to if the existing center were simply re-occupied. Specifically, if looking at the Table, the numbers under the existing center (the average daily traffic) would be 26,984 compared to the current project with 21,600 ADT's.Three comments were received this date. He went through the verbal responses to those comments.The tirst letter is from George Mihlsten of Latham and Watkins. The letter is quite lengthy and will take some time. On the first page and first paragraph of the second page it is basically introductory remarks and 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 not specific detailed comments regarding the document. The first response will come after Section II. Analysis - A. - 1 st paragraph. The argument in the letter is that there is substantial evidence there will be a significant impact and therefore, you must do an EIR. Response: The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Center Mills Project is legally adequate under CEOA. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the City Center Mills Project will produce significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated. The second paragraph .- there was reference to previous correspondence that is in the Initial Study. He referenced back to Appendix B. When an earlier project was proposed, it was proposed at 1.5 million square feet. They issued the Notice of Preparation that said they were starting an EIR process and give us your comments. It was sent to all public agencies who might be affected by the project. Now, they got those responses back, but subsequent to that, the project was changed. It was down sized. They decided to go through the Mitigated Negative Declaration process because of a lower project; they were re-constructing and redeveloping an existing center. However, the information was still useful and they still put that into the Appendix as reference. Apparently, that has created a little bit of confusion and it also generated the one comment as well. Their response to that particular letter is that the correspondence from the other jurisdictions has to do with the other larger project. It has been withdrawn and is not what the Commission is reviewing at this hearing. It also specifically refers to the Fire Department of the City of Orange having various concerns. The Fire Department is satisfied with the project (with the reduction in project size, the Fire Department daesn~ have any serious concerns). On Page 3, B. it indicated the MND failed to explain the abandonment of the original project. The reason the earlier project was not described is because It has been withdrawn. They are describing the project being reviewed and that's what is in the Initial Study. Another point: The basis for the findings that the project will not create significant impacts is not based on a comparison between this project and the larger, earlier project they had. That's one of the comments being made in the letter and that's not the case. In another paragraph (same page) they say the project has been split into parts. Under CEOA, you must look at the whole project. But they're making that argument with the understanding there is a larger project and they are only looking at the smaller part of it. It's not true. That larger project was withdrawn. The one being reviewed is the one they have analyzed and they fully addressed it in the Initial Study. There is a specific comment that the elevations show a larger project. That is not the case. Any graphics or elevations that are in the Initial Study show the current project. On Page 3, C. it makes the argument that the project has an insufficient project description. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a full description of the proposed project and it is the project being reviewed by the Commission .. not the larger project.Ms. Link went through the square footage of the project being reviewed to clear up any misunderstandings. They are proposing to keep the two restaurants. B Torito and TGIPs. The total there is 18, 900 square feet. There is a 22,216 square foot theater. It has 1,580 seats. They are currently open and remain because they have a long lease. There is a 375,434 square foot office and it will remain. They are proposing to add retail of 586,164 square feet (new shops). They propose to add 107,366 square feet of new theaters -- a 30-plex theater. They are proposing to add n,263 square feet of restaurants.The total of the new construction is nO,793 square feet. Existing buildings total 41,116 square feet.The total is 1,187,343 square feet. Confusion has come up in the letter currently being addressed and has come up in other comments from the County and various agencies. She wanted to make sure everyone understood this was the square footage they were proposing. They haven't changed it since they came before the City in January.Mr. Mears continued with his responses...On Page 4, D. Improper Cumulative Impacts Analysis - the project involves the replacement and reconstruction of an existing commercial center. The existing center is fully entitled and can be re.occupied at any time. He mentioned a recent court of appeals case that came down having to deal with at what point is the cumulative impact issue raised. The court said that an individual project impact must be considerable before the cumulative impact issue arises. He quoted a small part of the court's findings: "The question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the individual project are considerable.. That's going back to the fact that this project's impacts must be considerable before getting into the problem of having to look at cumulative impacts in great detail. In the next paragraph, within the cumulative impact issue, they reference Sporistown and that the MND did not include in the analysis. The answer is the same as before. The project is simply the reconstruction or replacement of an existing center. Under E. Improperly Analyzed Population and Housing Impacts, it said the MND improperly assumed the existing mall was fully occupied.4 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 Of course, It Is not. And that's not the case. They have assumed the mall is currently vacant or largely vacant, but at the same time, it could be re-occupied without further environmental review. Turning to Page 5, F. Improperly Analyzed Water Quality Impacts. It says the MND has not provided sufficient mitigation for water quality. They are complying with all the requirements of the reviewing agencies.These are standard conditions and are well established. They have not improperly left the development of mitigation to future phases. The project cannot go forward without the plans in place. Page 5, G.Improperly Analyzed Air Quality Impacts. Again, this is the argument that they have assumed the mall is not vacant. Their air quality analysis is based on the entitled center. If the mall were re-occupied, which it is entitled to do now, the net change would be exactly as they have said. Actually, mare emissions would occur under the existing center if it were re-occupied. The emissions from the eXisting center are included in the regional models maintained by the Air Quality Management District. Page 6, the very first full paragraph -- again, the same comment is being made In terms of the mall being vacant at the current time. The Mitigated Negative Declaration recognizes the mall is vacant, but that it could be re-occupied.The paragraph is dealing with the CO analysis. The CO hotspot analysis is dealing with the air quality impacts at a localized level. If you're close to a major arterial, will you be exposed to high levels of emissions? Their analysis starts with the existing base, which is existing traffic conditions. They have not assumed the traffic is out there for this existing mall. They take the existing traffic conditions as they are right now and add this project to them. They have done a proper analysis of the CO hotspots. Page 6, 2.The MND Omits Dozer Emissions. Their analysis is based an the Southern California Air Quality Management District's handbook. This is the source for the conclusion that dozer emissions would be negligible. They have complied with their guidelines in terms of doing this kind of analysis. They do not believe they have improperly done that kind of analysis. Page 6, 3. The MND Makes Faulty Assumptions About the Quantities of Construction Equipment That Will Be Needed. This comment misunderstands the analysis is based on worst case conditions for on-site construction. The comparison to the entire project and the comment is erroneous. You will see some numbers (for example, 170, 000 cubic yards of fill). Their comment is basically that the numbers can~ possibly be correct if the numbers of fill they have coming to the site is that large. That's a misunderstanding of what they are saying. their analysis looks at the worst case condition on site. And, within the first phase. The first phase is the important one because the applicant needs to get in within a certain time frame to satisfy the tenants that are coming in.Especially, the theater use. The critical period in terms of their analysis, in terms of when they can~ play much with how it is going to be constructed, is that first phase. In Phases 2, 3 and 4, they can do other things to drop the emissions on a daily basis. The construction period can be lengthened so there will be less dust within a given day. Also, within Phase 1 there will be three sub- phases. They looked at the worst case within that phase, which happened to be the second sub- phase. When the comment is made that the numbers can1 possibly be correct because they don~ correspond with the total numbers, It is because they are misunderstanding how the project will be constructed. They have done a lot of analysis and have looked very carefully at this particular impact issue. It's a tough one because of its size. If the project were built quickly, the pollutant emissions would be very high. There are some comments in the document, and it gets very detailed in terms of how they did the anaiysis, and the number of the pieces of equipment and how many hours they are there on a day -- the main answer to that question is that it comes from very detailed information they got from the applicant's contractor. They have good information as to how the project will be buill. Then it is based on machine hours. Statements about only one dozer aren~that important. The critical factor is the total machine hours. Page 7, 4. Improper Selection of Intersections for Air Quality Analysis. The comment was that they didn~ look at the intersections that would have the biggest impacts. They believe they did it properly. It was based on four criteria: 1) the intersection is in the area; 2) they looked for the highest ICU values ( the worst operating intersections in the area); 3) within those, which ones had the highest project impact; and 4) there was a sensitive receptor in the area. If they had a high ICU value for the intersection, and the project may impact that intersection,but they don~ have homes or another kind of sensitive receptor in the area, it's not a big Issue. Based on the 4 criteria, they selected the intersections for analysis and believe they are appropriate for the circumstances. Page 7, 5. Improper Failure to Account for Changing Vehicle Speeds. The comment is that the 25 m.p.h. is not a proper speed given the potential congestion in the area. The speed limit on The City Drive is 40 m.p.h. And those signals are timed as well. They based the selection of the 25 m.p.h.an average) for the area based on the expected ICU values for The City Drive. He pointed out their analysis, in terms of that, is consistent with the Cal Trans standards for Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 Joe Foust, Austin-Foust Associates, 2020 Norih Tustin Avenue, said they followed all the guidelines and dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. There is a shopping center that is roughly 800,000 square feel.Very little of that is used right now. They counted the existing Intersections and traffic and then super-imposed using a "worst case type" analysis to find out if the center were re-occupied and traffic did materialize, could the system work. They found aut it could and at an acceptable level of service. They got very detailed in that someone could misconstrue the traffic study and conclude the project might generate more traffic than what the "entitled" project would. That might somehow disqualify you from consideration in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is a different scenario. They took a look at the project the way it was going to be and the type of traffic a regional center would generate if It were re-occupied. They went to the best source available - ITE. In reality, the trip rates for a value oriented or Mills Corporation center are about 30% less than the conventional regional shopping center. Comparing the traffic from this project (they expect 25-30% less than if a regional center re-occupied), they didn't stop there. They analyzed initially the worst case. How do the theaters rate? They took the best projection they could make (based on a theater of 2,000 seats) and expanded It out to 6,000. They were projecting or forecasting. The Increment of expansion doesn~ achieve what the base has. The trip rates forecasted are too much. The street system will work. They are also offering some mitigation. One being the dedication of additional right-of-way on The City Drive for the potential that maybe Metropolitan is either delayed or postponed indefinitely. This project is making possible through right-of-way the availability to expand the capacity of the street. As shown on the plans, there is a mitigation for a new entrance to the project. That will distribute the traffic significantly around the project and then there will be improvements along The City Drive that substantially will increase the capacity to get in and out of the center. He continued with the comments, Page 8, H. 1 Inaccurate Trip Generation Data. They used the best source of information available. 2. Inaccurate Trip Distribution Data. Again, they used the best tool available,which was the 1-5 Santa Ana Freeway traffic model to determine the distribution of traffic to and from the area. 3. Inaccurate Capacity Analysis. The comment does not understand what the Orange County CMP procedure is. The Orange County Congestion Management Program and the Capacity Analysis required this study. It followed it to the letter. The City of Orange's traffic policies are based on the CMP. He added one more comment. He made a little mistake. The City of Anaheim made a comment about using the traffic counts from the CMP at the intersection of the 57 Freeway and Katella. They counted the intersections within one year to meet one of CMP's requirements. They used the CMP count, which was over a year old. And they did the analysis and it didn~ make a significant change. But In looking at that,they saw a couple of numbers that had typo's in the report. An 87 was reported as 57, but they changed the number and did all the recalculations. With this project an that street with the new entrance, it works today.Mr. Mears referred back to City of Anaheim's fourth comment, which was on their second page. Inbound and outbound trips generated by the proposed project are different during both AM and PM peak periods i.e., 1,689 inbound during AM peak hour and 1,085 outbound trips during PM peak hour); however, the study distributes inbound and outbound trips equally. The Intersections along Katella Avenue should reflect the differential In outbaundlinbound volumes. The attachment that follows provides that information and Joe discussed what that issue was about.That brings him to the same letter, Page 9, I. Improperly Analyzed Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Impacts. He thought there was a misunderstanding represented by the comment. The contaminated site that is discussed in the Initial Study is only the former Firestone Tire facility. That is in the far southeastern corner of the site. It's not the entire site and it's not the area adjacent to UCI Medical Center, which is the concem raised in the comment letter. The comment is saying because that site is contaminated, it may put UCI Medical Center at risk. It's not the case; it's not where the site is located. The tanks were previously removed. There is some additional soil remediation that must occur and it would be required to occur before the issuance of building permits. Also, they would need clearance from the Regional Water Quality Control Board before they could proceed. On the same page, Item J. Improperly Analyzed Construction Noise Impacts. The City does not have construction noise limits. And there is reference to that in the document. However, they didn~ stop at that point. The comment that they didn't go beyond that is not correct. Construction noise levels will not be above a 75 dB at any time or any sensitive receptor so the project would not have significant construction noise impact. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 mitigation measures or maybe the criticism Is that there are mitigation measures but they didn~ say the impact was significant. They recognize there may be significant construction Impacts at the adjacent residential areas or at other locations. They went so far as to include some mitigation measures. One, the limits on the hours of construction. Also, a mitigation measure that requires them to locate the noisiest construction equipment away from the sensitive receptors so as not to be impacted. On Page 10, the first full paragraph, having to do with going on and recommending mitigation measures even though there wasn't a significant impact. They looked seriously at construction noise and that's the reason they identified mitigation measures there. Page 10, K. Impraperiy Analyzed Impacts on Crucial Public Services. The first ane is on water. Mr. VonSchimmelmann responded to the comment. The question is on the Impact to the City's water supply. In discussions with the Water Division, the water supply has been found to be mare than adequate. In fact, the Water Division has recently completely their Urban Water Management Plan, which has been submitted to the City Council and will be acted upon at the next Council meeting that stipulates the adequacy of the City of Orange's water supply. this plan Includes the Mills' proposal. Mr. Mears pointed out there was a foot note concerning this Issue as well (an Page 10). He thought it was a misunderstanding of the letter that EMA submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation. He thought the confusion had to do with the water supply vs. the hydrological impacts. They have looked at the need to bring the site above the flood plain area. That has been addressed. Many of the comments have to do with the earlier Nap responses of the larger project. While there may be some concems, if you bring in a larger project, those concerns disappear when they're replacing what is there now. He moved on to waste water. They have had discussions with the Sanitation District who indicated they don~ have a problem with providing service for this project. In terms of solid waste, they looked In great detail at the site, especially in terms of demolition impacts and recycling efforts. They also looked at the operational Impacts how much solid waste is generated by this project? One of the comments was that the new project had to comply with new regulations. They now have AB 939, which includes certain requirements to divert solid waste from the landfills. This project will have to comply with the new requirements. The existing center out there didn~ have to comply. The new project will generate less solid waste than the previous one did. Page 11, L. Issues Raised by Other Agencies and Interested Parties. He just mentioned the Orange County Sanitation District (1.). He moved on to 2. University of Callfomia, Irvine (UCI). They raise an issue in terms of an intersection from the Medical Center. The project will simply re-accupy and entitlas the center, and there will be less traffic than before. This Is a Nap comment concerned about a large project, which has been withdrawn. 3. State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans). Cal Trans was concerned when the project was an expansion, but is no longer concerned with the project. 4. The City of Anaheim. He noted the City of Anaheim submitted a Notice of Preparation response, but they have also submitted one of the letters included in the Comments and Responses package. They do not bring up the issue that has been cited in the comment letter. 5. City of Orange Fire Department. He believed the Fire Department has subsequently indicated it has no problem with the smaller project. Ms. Link Introduced Linda Bozung, who was working on this project and she had a couple of comments. She had been helping the Mills Company with respect to land use and CECA issues. The letter came in at 5:30 p.m. this date and they understand it is from a competing project. They felt it was important to make the Commission feel comfortable with their responses. She wanted to add a little bit more to the comments that were raised. To the respect to the comment that they didn't explain the abandonment of the initial project, it's not clear what this project is -- they believe It's very clear. They have a 1.5 million square foot project. They looked at the project and determined that for various reasons, not the least among them, that they wanted to make sure they were able to mitigate the impacts. They reduced that project significantly to where it is now under the square footage of the shopping center as it currently exists, which they could enter today and re-inhabit without any further environmental analysis. They believe that is completely clear. As many of you know, projects are reduced often at the final stage; they reduced theirs at the initial stages. This is not a phase of a larger project. She thought there was a suggestion in the letter that it is a phase; that they may be violating CEQA because they are segmenting their project. The Commission is reviewing their complete project; they are not looking at a part of the project. When they talk about phases in the project, Dwayne is talking about them with respect to air pollution impacts and how they are trying to phase the project so their impacts are not great enough to 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 exceed the Air Quality Management District requirements. They are phasing their construction to stay within the South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements for the various criteria pollutants. This is all one project. With respect to cumulative impacts, it is unnecessary to look at cumulative impacts for a project when there are no projects specific direct impacts. With respect to the population and housing impacts, she thought the City of Santa Ana in their comments said that because they are going to be providing 1,624 new jobs, they will be creating a growth Inducing impact. That 1,624 people will be coming into the area to take these jobs. The City of Orange has a 6.7% unemployment rate and has over 4,000 individuals out of work. They believe these types of jabs can be taken by those individuals that are currently unemployed and possibly by unemployed people in the area, and there will not be growth inducing impacts created by the project. Wrth respect to water quality Impacts, and this comes up In a number of areas where the commenter is accusing them of not having mitigation measures and is citing the Sundstrom case. The Sundstrom case arose in a situation where the decision makers on a particular project determined there was an Impact, but they said they would study that down the road. They have done nothing along those lines with this project. And in every case where the commenter has stated that there was vague or Sundstrom-like mitigation measures, they have specifically stated they would do everything that the appropriate regulatory agencies required to be done in this situation. Asbestos clean-up, NPDS requirements for storm water, the water quality impacts they're speaking of .. those are accepted mitigation measures. They will be complying with the Air Quality Management District regulations, with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations, with NPDS regulations and those are the regUlatory agencies that have the ability to determine what is needed in a particular situation.Again, with respect to the dozer emissions. They are using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines Handbook that specifically indicates not to measure those emissions. With respect to the faulty assumptions about the quantities of construction equipment that will be needed, it amuses her somewhat when people try to define a particular developer's project. The construction folks that are working with the Mills Corporation have indicated to them what equipment will be used and what equipment will be necessary in order to demolish to site and to construct a site. She believed they were the experts for the site and there would be no reason to mis-represent that. With respect to the improper selection of intersections for air quality analysis, if you actually look through their report, they list three criteria. They have specifically used the first one of those criteria, plus a number of others as Dwayne mentioned. As to the average vehicle speeds using the 25 m.p.h., the speed limit on that particular roadway is 40 m.p.h. They averaged, as is done In these types of situations, between the people that will be stopped and the people who go through that Intersection at 40 m.p.h. That Is the reason why the 25 m.p.h. is utilized there. With respect to the construction noise impacts, the City daesn~ have noise standards other than the typical construction standards that require you to operate during certain hours.They believe their noise impacts will not be significant. But because in a situation like noise you can~ be absolutely certain, that's why they added the mitigation measures in talking about locales for the crusher and making sure it is not near sensitive receptors. The comment on the situation seems to have criticized them for including mitigation measures when there might not be an impact. They wanted to be absolutely sure they were mitigating if there were an impact and that's why It Is in there. A number of letters they received initially were NOP letters that were on the original project. Instead of reducing their project at the end, they reduced it at the beginning and they have spoken with many of those districts (all of the ones raised in the comment letter) such as Orange County Sanitation, Cal Trans, City of Anaheim. They have received comments from Anaheim since then and they have not reiterated the comments they made in the Notice of Preparation letters. She wanted to go back to Joe's picture of entering the existing Shopping center without environmental analysis and the Impacts would actually be greater than the center they are now proposing. In that sense, their impacts are less than they would be and they have analyzed that and have imposed the appropriate mitigation measures.Mr. Mears said attached to the Latham & Watkins letter is a study from Jones & Stakes Associates and then also a study from Korve Engineering on the traffic. They looked through the sections and believed everything in the reports have been addressed in the letter.Mr. Foust commented on the parking issue. Korve referred to the parking with the implication the project is going to be under-parked or it will have a parking problem. They didn't do a specific parking demand and supply study as Korve would suggest. This project is going to be parked according to the City's parking code requirements. The project is not asking for a shared use reciprocal parking agreement. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 to the Korve document, on Page 3, 1.2 Analysis Scope - the project is not encumbered by the cumulative project. It continues, Page 3, 2.1 Surrounding Highway Network. They felt three critical intersections were not analyzed: Chapman at State CollegelAnaheim Blvd.ll-5 ramps; State College at 1-5 ramps; and State College at Anaheim Boulevard. They carefully examined the Cal Trans 1-5 corridor traffic model and this project generates less than it was entitled or envisioned by that project, as well as all the other cumulative projects in the area. As far as existing traffic conditions, again, they went out and followed precisely the Orange County and City of Orange Congestion Management Program for Identifying existing traffic conditions. The next section, 3.1, the same comments for trip generation and distribution of traffic. It also deals with an-site parking and circulation. That is something that will continue to be reviewed and evaluated.Mr. Mears said that completed their response to the Latham & Watkins letters and all of the attachments.They also received two additional letters this aftemoon. The first one is from the County of Orange dealing with public safety issues. The applicant will provide a substation on site and will have a private security force that they will manage as well. Another comment is that the City of Orange Police Department is in favor of the project.Wayne Wedin, Economic Development Consultant, reminded everyone that in August, 1995 the Orange County Board of Supervisors certified an Environmental Impact Report for the potential expansion of the Theo Lacy Branch Jail. The City, adjacent property owners and County were involved in a number of conversations relative to the conditions that were contained in that Environmental Impact document. The County of Orange went to some considerable length to convince everyone that with the new design and new improvements, with the improvements to traffic circulation, landscaping and security, that in fact the neighborhood around the Theo Lacy facility would be safer than it was before. He would argue that the County's own environmental impact statement has helped them make the argument relative to the accuracy of security and the improvement of that security in and around the neighborhood. Secondly, he suggested that the head of security for the Mills Corporation was here a few weeks ago. Security met with the combined staffs of the Orange Police and Fire Departments. They were pleasantly surprised to find out they had a security person who was a former Chief of Police. He wasn~ a rent a cop; he was a trained municipal law enforcement officer that understood the needs of law enforcement, understood training and 24-hour dispatch, understood on-site detention, which this facility will have.Mr. Mears addressed one last letter from the City of Santa Ana. On the first page, their comments about the Notice of Preparation on the size of the project, has been mentioned previously. The 1.5 million square foot project has been withdrawn. The second one begins an the second page having to do with the theater seating. The 7,636 seats is the combination of both the existing theater that is there now and the one that is proposed. The number has not changed. The third item, jobs, housing balance - Unda Bozung presented most of this information, but they have in Orange a 6.7% unemployment rate; a total of 4,386 people who are unemployed. The kinds of jobs in this project include part timers and second and third wage earners within households. You wouldn't expect workers to travel long distances and they wouldn~ expect an impact of affordable housing within the City of Santa Ana. Four and five have to do with construction equipment, emissions and he believed he talked in great detail about those issues,having to deal with the size of the project and how they looked at it, the phasing issues. He referenced back to the previous discussion.Chairman Bosch said the Commission understands that as other comments come up during the course of the public dialogue staff and consultants will be able to respond to those questionslconcerns for the record. There is another letter dated March 18, 1996 from Barbara DeNiro.Public Comment Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, noticed this item was on the Consent Calendar and she was glad they were able to discuss it. It was nice to see so many City employees here after working hours. She only got a little information so she was not prepared to adequately address some of the issues. It was beyond her comprehension why they want to keep Old Towne in Orange, old, yet still demolish a shopping center that is only about 25 years old for a new concept. She hears Orange will get tax revenue, Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 advantages are outlet malls to the community when higher end shopping goes to Main Place, Brea Mall, South Coast or Fashion Island and nothing has been done to entice a high end store for the Broadway vacancy at Orange Mall? Is it because 01 the compromised expansion 01 the jail facility and juvenile center that there isn~ a better draw far the area? What retail stores, restaurants and entertainment facilities might the community expect there? Outdoor dining usually brings the birds and their mess. Will this include perhaps a large community center or per10rrnance center of some kind with all the parking that is available? Is the access to stores from the outside and not a covered mall type center? (That was already answered.) Will a police lacility also be located in the center (that was answered)? Will there be outdoor surveillance cameras? What sort of redevelopment fees are being asked lor on this project and what is the pay- back period or arrangements? Usually these type of facilities in the West are on more 01 the outskirts 01 cities because 01 the already congested inner-city areas. How will the additional bus bays be handled? She too had a concern about how the trallic would be handled when the professional sports lacilities are in operation? She needed an explanation of who the occupants might be or those lettered buildings. Who is the contractor and what is his address? She was also curious about the security office and where it will be located?Ken Moore, 606 19th Street, Huntington Beach, represented the Orange County Economic Development Consortium. It is a relatively new consortium, which is made up 01 the public and private sectors working together for business retention and business expansion. He urged the Commission's support for the Mills project. They want to encourage investment in Orange County, to create new job opportunities and to work with cities to expand their revenue base. They believe the Mills Corporation is the kind of developer with a National reputation for quality that all 01 us would like to have here in Orange County. Their portfolio includes lour super regional outlet malls throughout the United States, one super regional conventional mall and 11 community shopping centers in 11 states lor a total 0110 million square feet. Their organization Is interested in bringing new jobs to Orange County. The new project would create additional job opportunities in Orange and would add new tax dollars to the City. Finally, the project would re-energize an under-utilized site into a real asset.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supported this project and made a couple 01 observations. He lound it rather ironic that Main Place is hollering about this project and they're the reason The City is largely deserted. He has sat in the Iront row 01 the Council Chambers lor the past 17 years and has seen many things. He watched the surrounding cities make changes and add new development while Orange sat and did nothing. Finally, Orange is starting to do something. He thought it was high time Orange made up its mind to expand and improve their lacilities.Neil Giles, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, represented Metropolitan Lile. They are selling The City Shopping center to the Mills Corporation in anticipation 01 their redevelopment. Because they will continue to own a number 01 buildings adjacent to the new center, they took the step 01 hiring Linscott,Law & Greenspan, a trallic consuttant, to analyze the Mills study that was completed by Mr. Foust. He had a table that was completed by them that shows that in their professional opinion, the tralfic generation would actually be less than what Joe Foust calculated. The primary reason to that being that Linscott felt there was a dillerence due to the value center. They have two concerns about the redevelopment. They noticed the conditions of approval require dedication of some of the property. They would like to make clear that the dedication is only on the land the Mills Corporation will purchase and redevelop .. not on the land Metropolitan continues to awn. That would be required to be dedicated as additional development occurs along The City Drive. They are also supportive 01 the left turn lane oil 01 Metropolitan Drive onto The City Drive South. Otherwise, they extend their full support to the lull development. He submitted a letter to the Commission.Jim Arnone, with the law firm of Latham & Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, represented Urban Retail Properties. Almost everything that has been heard tonight about why their substantial written comments don~ really raise problems you need to be concerned about is being said for the lirst time tonight. There is no evidence belore the Commission to support the oral statements heard tonight and he thought the Commission should have the evidence belore them when considering their comments and Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is ceriainly very little evidence in the MND that the Commission is being asked to approve and he respectively asked the Commission consider only Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 before them. Secondly, they stand by their written comments and those of their experts. They hired Ron Bass of Jones & Stokes, who is an exceptionally well regarded environmental planning expert, as well as Korve Engineering, which is an equally well regarded transportation consulting engineering firm. Their comments, which they also submitted to the Commission, make it clear that based on the evidence in the record, the Mitigating Negative Declaration is insufficient as it is currently written. He would like to remind the Commission that a Mitigated Negative Declaration Is only appropriate on very certain specified circumstances. Specifically, you can only use a Mitigated Negative Declaration when there is no fair argument that there could be any adverse impact from the project. If there is any chance that an adverse impact can occur, an Environmental Impact Report is supposed to be done. With that in mind, they believe if the Commission looked at the actual evidence before them, it's clear there are many good arguments that there might be a signnicant adverse impact, and therefore, an EIR under CEOA would be required. While the Commission might ultimately find the project has benefits that outweigh its environmental impacts, CEOA requires that a trade off like this can only be made when you consider the true environmental impacts. That's the whale purpose of an environmental impact report. That's not what is before the Commission. In light of all of this, they believe there is more than a fair argument that a significant, adverse environmental impact can exist from the project. They respectfully request that the Commission refuse to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and defer for now consideration of the major site plan review until these impOriant concerns and an appropriate environmental review evaluation can be conducted. Commissioner Pruett said Mr. Arnone indicated there was very little evidence being presented to guide the Commission in this project. Could he be more specific in terms of what is meant by very little evidence? Mr. Arnone meant very little evidence to support the oral statements heard tonight. He had some much more specific comments he was going to be making about their concems to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which he cut down. But, he would go into some of them. One example: There is an inconsistent use of base lines in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. For very many of the Issues that are looked at, that are analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, they assume the current project is operating at full capacity. Everyone knows it is not; that's why the project is being proposed. In order to consider what the actual impacts will be from the project, they must look at the existing conditions as they exist currently on the ground. That's a fundamental inconsistency because they also, in other places, would look at the existing impacts (like in the traffic analysis they looked at some actual impacts) but in the air section they didn~ look at the actual traffic; they looked at hypothetical traffic. And in the traffic analysis, they looked at actual traffic or something like that. It was an inconsistent use of base lines that made it very confusing and doesn't measure the actual impacts of the project. The impacts he thought the Commission should consider looking at is what will happen if the project were approved? What will change from what is currently there? This is a largely vacant mall and it has been this way for some time. To pretend it's not largely vacant, would tend to understate the environmental impacts. A few of the places that comes out - they heard about the vehicle trips. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes the project will reduce vehicle trips and will clean the air. They're talking about demolishing a vacant mall and rebuilding a new regional retail center and major theater complex. Can you believe it is going to reduce traffic impacts and clean the air? That's only if you compare it to a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist.Commissioner Pruett was hearing Mr. Arnone say the reality is the vacant mall and not the approved use.Mr. Arnone said the reality is the vacant mall. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has inconsistencies.Sometimes it uses the reality and sometimes it uses the hypothetical.Commissioner Pruett said they were talking base line. (Yes.) If he was understanding him correctly, he was indicating the base line the Commission should be evaluating and looking at is a vacant building or a vacant use, rather than the approved use that was basically approved for the sile and is existing to the site,but they shouldn't use that.11 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 Mr. Amone responded no. In part, yes and no. As a matter of common sense, you can~ know what the Impacts of the project will be unless you look at the existing conditions. There is a lot of case law that discusses that. Commissioner Pruett said they were talking about base line. When talking about base line, they're talking about the basis on which they will make all judgments. He's trying to get to the basic point. The basic point is, what is the base line? Is the bese line a vacant building that has basically no use or is the base line going to be the approved use? What he's hearing Mr. Amone say is that ft is a vacant use. Mr. Arnone said it was the current use. Commissioner Pruett questioned if it were the current approved use or the current vacant use? Mr. Arnone explained it was the current use as it exists in reality, which would be the current use that is partially vacant. He understands it is not totally vacant. The current use, however it's in use today, which is largely vacant. Commissioner Pruett said what he heard from Mr. Amone is the base line to be considered is a vacant building. Mr. Arnone replied yes, and it has to be consistent. Internally, it should be consistent. You shouldn~ pick and choose the base lines, switching as you go through the sections of the MND. Chairman Bosch was following the conversation and he had to build on Commissioner Pruett's concern. He felt Mr. Arnone was being vague and ambiguous and taking out of context certain aspects of this in terms of the response, in terms of what's utilizing current condition va. hypothetical projected uses vs. hypothetical what would the thing that is there now do when it Is full. Part of what you have to look at in considering a base line is what mitigation measures have been undertaken through public improvements, modifications to other properties, transportation, water systems, air quality management systems, congestion management, etc. on down the list because of the "hypothetical" of the full existing center. And there have been many, down to several miles away from the center with regard to the 1- 5 improvements, KatellalState College Avenue improvements at the intersections, City of Orange Water planning and physical improvements in place, City Drive improvements -- all of these aren~ based on an empty mall sitting there. They are based an the actual loads that have been determined to be generated by the current project In place with full loads an it. He needed Mr. Arnone to be less ambiguous about what base line means. And, again, if he were responding to the verbal comments as being inadequate, he thought he needed to respond specifically to how they are and how they relate to the facts they have in place, which include those mitigation measures. Mr. Arnone believed the current base line used is inadequate for two primary reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. The same base line Is not used throughout the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Secondly, he believed the appropriate base line to use when looking at a long vacant mall is in its largely vacant state. Now with respect to the Chairman's comments about other improvements that may have been undertaken with the assumption that the mall was full and fully operating, that may be and that may mean when you consider the impacts of the project, that you are going to conclude that certain impacts are lessened or that it won~ have any impacts because the roadways have been expanded assuming a full mall. But that's the sort of thing that is to be explored in an environmental document. It's not a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chairman Bosch believed they will get a response to that, but again, he believed that goes back to the basis for, as you say, the determination of when is an EIR appropriate vs. a Mitigated Negative Declaration va. a Negative Declaration? And, to a great extent, they are set upon on the base line of identifying what environmental impacts may exist or what is the scope of the project and its potential impacts on a community. If there are none, then you don~ go to a full EIR. Mr. Arnone agreed with that statement. 12 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 Commissioner Smith received the 12-page document tonight at 6:30 p.m. She wandered why Mr.Arnone did not afford the Commission the courtesy of more extended time to review the lengthy document, which is quite detailed and refers back and forth to a much larger document? She wondered what the strategy was?Mr. Arnone thanked Commissioner Smith for the question. He was just retained in this matter last week.So he just began. He has been working to put this together. They were finished about 10 minutes before they were faxed over to Mr. Cames. He also put a hard copy in a van with a messenger to get them to the Planning counter. He wished he had completed them earlier, but it took him the full amount of time.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Amone for his quailfications for review of an environmental impact report. What was his prior experience and knowledge of the conditions surrounding this project area and the standards and Impacts in the City of Orange in this part of the City?Mr. Arnone stated their analysis was based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration because that is the document that is suppose to analyze these environmental considerations. He also looked at the Notice of Preparation that was prepared and they retained environmental experts to look at the environmental planning aspects and the transportation aspects. They relied greatly on their expertise. He personally practiced land use law and has been doing so for six years. His law firm has very extensive expertise in this area and they had a team of people working together to put together the comments.Jon Swallow, broker with Grubb & Ellis, 500 North State College Avenue, supported this project; it was a great opportunity for Orange and it will certainly help them to attract and retain the tenants that are in the existing City surrounding office development.Val Daugherty, tenant at the Terrace Apartments, supported the Mills Corporation.Joe Bann, General Manager of the Doubletree Hotel, fully supported the Mills project. It will certainly add to the guests that stay with them, to have other opporiunities to do other things in Orange. It will keep guests coming to Orange. Currently, they compete with other cities such as Garden Grove and Anaheim and this will add something to draw customers to the area which will support revenues for their properties,as well as for the City. Rebuttal Ms. Link wanted to answer a couple of the questions that were raised. In response as to why they are going to demolish the shopping center even though it is only 25 years old -- they would keep it if they could. It costs money to tear a center down. If they could find tenants that could use the existing footprints that are out there, they would do it. The current tenants want higher ceiling heights, they want wider counter spaces, they don't like the layout of the two-story or three-story department stores, they just won~ take the space. She couldn~ respond to the Broadway issue, but she wanted to talk a little bit about the type of tenants. When they say it Is a value oriented retail experience, they see it as a high end use.An example would be Sak's Fifth Avenue Outlet. The Mills Corporation build their projects, they own them and operate them very well. She didn't think people would find any of the procedures they use to operate their outdoor center to be unacceptable. Outdoor dining will not be a problem. There will be a system of security cameras that will be looking at all the parking lots on the project. One of the things the Mills Corporation is very proud of is their bus tour program. That hasn~ been discussed, but on a typical Mills project there may be 2,000 buses a year that come in. People spend the day shopping via bus tours.They typically designate a bus parking area. As they get further along in their plans, they'll do that. She was not at liberty to tell the public who the tenants will be. The contractor is Hinsell Phelps and their firm is based in Irvine. Security will be handled in house. Last October the City passed a Memorandum of Understanding. It was an agreement to basically talk to each other. They talked about a $ 25 million number. Todate, they haven't proceeded with any negotiations on that, although they will be after the process is complete. As to the specifics of how it is going to be paid back, that hasn't been determined yet. There will be some public hearings. As far as why they are picking this type of use - the high end value and the entertainment. there is Main Place. That is a competing center that does handle the Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 standard regional mall. The market needs something different. They thought they were a different type of project and will attract their customers because it will be a different shopping experience than at Main Place. If a regional mall, just like Main Place, were to succeed, the City Shopping Center would still be occupied. The fact that it is almost vacant is because the area can't support both projects of a similar nature. They believe this is an excellent location and they're coming in because the infrastructure is already in place. The project did exist at one point with over 800,000 square feet of retail. They see it as an opportunity to redevelop an area that currently is a problem in Orange. It's a vacant center and they see it as an opportunity to create a real plum. Mr. Foust responded to the traffic questions. The traffic study they did is for the conventional, Wednesday evening peak hour. They also looked at the Tuesday AM peak hour, but didn~ find much of a problem regarding the center. The real design period for this project is the weekday commuter peak hour between 5 and 6 p.m. There's a little bit of an overlap for the sports events - baseball either begins at 7:05 p. m. or 7:30 p.m. Similarly, with hockey - a little overlap. The sporting events will have some contribution to the peak hours. When he refers to the 1.5 Santa Ana Freeway traffic model, that has built into it the sporting events. The entertainment factor occurs a little later on in the evening. This is one of the advantages of this particular project. Stadium traffic does not correspond with the peak hour, but that's not to say there isn~ an element built into the model.Commissioner Pruett said it was his understanding that the 1-5 improvements will be taking a carpool lane off, onto Gene Autry Way that will dump right into the stadium to make ingress and egress from the freeway directly into the stadium.Mr. Foust said that was his understanding as well. In about 5 years the 1-5 Freeway will be twice as wide as it is now. Ms. Link addressed the flood plain issue. On the current FEMA maps the project is listed as being in the flood plain and their mitigation measures will be to raise the properiy up out of the flood plain, with some of the concrete that is on site that they will be demolishing and filling some imparted fill. There is also a possibility that the FEMA maps might be adjusted between now and when they start construction, in which case that won~ be necessary. The properiy is really not in the flood plain today; the improvements are in place. They will comply w~h the requirements. Mr. Mears said there was one comment that the Commission should consider only written or actual evidence that is before them, or actual evidence meaning that the only actual evidence the Commission has was in written form. He was not aware of any such concept. The Commission can take the testimony before them and consider it as they wish. They certainly would have provided a written response (and it would have been their preference) if they had gotten the letter at least by last Friday. The comment was made about the moving base line. The big issues are quality, noise, public services, and utilities. He gave the Commission some examples of what they look at. In the CO hotspot analysis, they started with the existing condition. They were looking at the emissions from traffic. If there is a major arterial and you are close to that arterial, will the emissions in that very location exceed the accepted standards? They look first at the existing conditions and add project related traffic, and look at whether or not they would then exceed the standards. The case is no, they are not, In a sense, taking credit for the existing development. They are fully looking at the project's impact. Noise is done in a similar sense. There is an existing situation out there in terms of the amount of traffic that is going In that area. They add the traffic to the network and take a look at noise levels as a result. In terms of construction noise, they have an existing ambient level. They add the construction equipment and activities they have described and look at the resulling noise levels. Public services and utilities -- in this instance they looked at water and waste water.They had an existing shopping center and it has operated there for many years. What is proposed is actually a little bit less than that. Is there any possibility that for some they would have a use that would exceed the amount of water or waste water generation? He thought the answer was quite obvious. They have a project that is essentially similar to what was in there before and what could be in there if it were re-occupied. And as they can do in the Initial Study, they determine there is no potential impact and don't have to look at it in any greater detail. So there will not be detailed generation rates in terms of waste water and water. They didn~ believe it was necessary. The same argument could be made with police, fire, etc.14 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 and that is what they looked at and discussed. They also contacted the various agencies to find out if they had any concems. They asked if there was any potential if the project, when it came back in, will exceed levels that the agencies could provide? The answer was no. In terms of regional air quality -- the shopping center that Is there now is currently entitled and as they have said, the center could be re-occupied at any time without any further environmental review. Because it is entitled and is there, the emissions that would come from that project are In the Air Quality Management District's regional plan. Sa, it's already there. Would this project exceed that level in any way? In great detail, they have explained that's not the case. They have a net reduction compared to that entitled amount. Commissioner Pruett said there was a statement made regarding the threshold of when an EIR Is required. Please explain when an EIR Is required vs. a Negative Declaration. Mr. Mears said he had some diagrams they could use. From their perspective they need to look at the proposed project and look to see if there is any potential for a significant impact. And where there could be, they would look for mitigation measures. If they could find mitigation measures that are effective, and they think they have. and can bring any impacts down to a level that is less than significant, that's the key thing. Are there any impacts that are significant? If there are not, then the directive is to prepare a Negative Declaration. In this case, they have identified mitigation measures; thus, the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Pruett went to CEQA to look at the sections of the code to see what the purpose of an Initial Study is because he wanted to understand that. Just for the record, the Initial Study, which is under Section 15063, Paragraph C, Sub-Paragraph 2, it indicates the purpose of an Initial Study is to enable the applicant or the lead agency to modify a project mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared;thereby, enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration.Mr. Mears thought that was a perfect explanation of what has happened with this project. The project was initially 1.5 million square feet and the EIR was in preparation at that time. The decision was made to reduce the project, to make sure they could bring it below all thresholds of significance, and that's what is before the Commission for review, using a Mitigated Negative Declaration.Ms. Link thanked everybody who has helped them get this prepared. Staff has been exceptionally diligent in spending a lot of time with this project. The consultants on board have certainly given up a lot of their weekends. She appreciated everyone's time and it hasn~ gone unnoticed.Discussion and Action Commissioner Pruett thought the issues have been dealt with from the standpoint of any impact that this might have on the environment. It has been mitigated through the plan. They are looking at a facility that is approved for a certain level of use. There is really no additional impact on the area. That includes the water and solid waste, and even the trip generations. They're going to be less than what they currently have. Air quality issues is another one that he didn~ think had a serious impact. He thought one of the things they haven~ talked about, and may be a factor, is when the project was originally approved, some of the transportation plans that have been approved and implemented by SCAG Include some of the transportation plans such as bus transportation and the expansion of OCTA, and that kind of activity has also been done, and even furiher mitigates the project from its original plan. He didn~ see a real big issue as it relates to the Environmental Impact Report. He believed the project would bring something new to the area; there's a great deal of value. They heard that from the adjoining apartment tenants who indicated they were very pleased the project is going to move forward. Also, the project conforms to the City' s development standards and design guidelines, with the conditions that exist on the project andlor are proposed for the project. That's important, especially in the area of the parking issue that was addressed and how the proposed project conforms to the parking standards of the City of Orange. This project will not provide any negative impact on the area or on the region. It's imporiant to recognize that the EIR that was prepared on the Theo Lacy Jail, that is adjacent and right across the street, was one that was developed so the center could operate at its full capacity. In other words, the bench mark becomes a fully utilized center. That was developed so there would be no impact and to use that EIR, if you were to use Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 that EIR as a good reference point, Is an example of how this project is mitigated If it does have any impacts. The on and off site circulation is adequate with the dedication of the right-of-way, allowing for the double left turn lanes, the new entry into the project enough to support the project, and the project has an intemal circulation plan that deals effectively with managing the circulation on site as well. The City services are adequate to serve the project and also those services that are provided by the other districts in the County. So he didn~ think services are a major issue. In terms of whether or not the project is compatible with the community, he thought just from hearing from the businesses around the project, as well as other people in the community Is an Indication that It is compatible with the community. The landscape plans and aesthetics will bring a valued project to the community.Commissioner Romero also believed that the Mills Corporation, the Planning Center and staff have performed an excellent job in bringing about a change that was well needed here. All aspects of questions have been addressed and he felt very comfortable with the presentation. He appreciated Commissioner Pruett's direction and comments/questions. He approved the project and thought II would be an excellent use for the City.Commissioner Smith concurred with the other Commissioners. She did not see any additional evidence before the Commission that there is significant impacts that would require an EIR. She was well aCQuainted with environmental impact reviews and has sat in on many scoping meetings on ather projects before she was appointed to the Commission. If this were a brand new project, never done on this site before, she might consider an EIR; however, this is a re-interpretation of an existing use. She did not think it was fair to call a base line measurement a vacant mall. This project can only stimulate business growth and enjoyment in the City of Orange. She liked the part of town it is in - the Western section of Orange. She hopes it does well. She couldn~ help but comment on the County of Orange's letter that this particular project might lead to more arrests when the City filed a lawsuit against the County of Orange for expanding the jail across the street. She had to laugh at this; it was hilarious the County would write to the City and propose this project would impact public safety in a form of increased arrests.Chairman Bosch echoed the statements of all the Commissioners. Here they have a very rare, but increasingly more prevalent nexus between the needs of the community, whether they be economic,service, suppori, aesthetics, community development and jobs, and the opportunity and needs that are seen by private enterprise and coming together in a publiclprivate parinership to make this sort of project work. He congratulated everyone involved In that. This is a wonderful thing and will probably be seeing more of these projects as they move Into a new generation of improvements in the City. Commissioner Pruett perfectly ariiculated the findings that were needed under the Municipal Code with regard to minor site plan review application. The needs of CEQA have been met with regard to this project. He found this was the appropriate vehicle for reviewing the environmental impact. There is not significant negative environmental impact. Any impacts have been adequately mitigated through measures proposed for this project, as well as measures already in place from past developments and adjacent developments.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Mitigate Negative Declaration 1497-96, finding that the project will not have any adverse environmental impact on the wildl~e resources with the recommended mitigation measures.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Major Site Plan Review 6-96 - The Mills "City. Project, with all the conditions of approval listed in the staff report ( 1-54) and those measures denoted with an . are mitigation measures. Also included in this motion are the findings previously iterated by Commissioner Pruett with regard to the Municipal Code.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 1996 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, 10 adjourn at 9:50 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 17