Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1997 PC MinutesG' :;? 3h' \ -, . / J() C~. f.. .MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange November 3, 1997 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 20,1997 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of October 20, 1997 with a correction regarding Negative Declaration 1532-97 - James Buchanan - th~t the mitigated negative declaration was not signed by the Sr. Historic Preservation Planner and Commissioner Smith did not have the assurance that the document was reviewed by Dan Ryan.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 2. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY; ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-97 - CITY OF ORANGE Review of a Parking Study which analyzed the parking situation in Downtown Orange. The Study recommendations include a proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code to establish an "in-lieu"parking fee and the concept of a "pay for parking" program within portions of the Downtown.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1539-79 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Mr. Jones presented the full staff report and slide show presentation regarding the Downtown Parking Study. Highlights of the presentation included Perceived Parking Problems, Objectives of Study, Study Approach, Study Findings, Study Recommendations, On-Going Concerns, Review Process and Parking Committee Recommendations. The Ad-Hoc Parking Committee is comprised of individuals from the Downtown area who are interested in parking concerns -- merchants, property owners, staff, Chamber of Commerce and Bernie Dennis, the consultant, who has worked for two years developing this study and putting together the research. The Committee created a Vision Plan for the Plaza District to assist property owners and merchants make the Downtown a more successful place by improving parking conditions and the parking supply. The Parking Study has been reviewed on several different occasions. The Parking Study contains a total of 21 recommendations and staff is requesting that the Planning Commission take action only on the major policy issues at this time. Implementation strategies can be more fully defined once the fundamental policy recommendations are acted upon. The Commission is asked to consider and approve the conceptofpay-for-parking in Downtown; adopt an In-lieu Parking Replenishment Fee Program, of $ 2,100 per parking space deficit created by new development or redevelopment, and $7,000 per parking space removed and not replaced as a function of site development or redevelopment. Approve the use of parking meters and pay stations in the Downtown area, with rates to be established subsequently.Establish a Downtown Parking Commission to guide the implementation of the Parking Committee's recommendations. Direct staff to evaluate the staffing demands and technical needs associated with the administration, enforcement, collection, maintenance and operational functions of the implementing the Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Commissioner Smith referred to Attachment 3, Short Term Parking Strategies. On Page 8, paragraph 2, it speaks about 200,000 sq. ft. of enhanced development. She wondered where the Downtown area had 200,000 sq. ft. yet to be developed? Mr. Jones replied the 200,000 sq. ft. is an estimate and reflects not just the potential for existing businesses to expand, but could also include things such as adding a parking structure or adding more square footage as part of a parking structure. It's a conservative number on the high side, but it could be accomplished. Commissioner Smith was not clear about the In-lieu Parking Replenishment concept. She asked if the applicants get a certain amount of free spaces before they are charged for the in-lieu parking spaces.Mr. Jones explained the concern: If an application came through and there were a large number of spaces that maybe warranted special concern, the in-lieu fee proposes that it could be used and addressed for any project that had a deficiency of less than 20 spaces. But, if it were 20 spaces or more,that would be considered a significant project and it would go to the City Council for final action. In eit~er case, the fee could be charged. If it is less than 20 spaces, it could be accommodated without gOing through a variance procedure. The money would be collected and put in a special fund to be used only for future parking needs.Commissioner Romero asked if there has been any initial conceptual design with regard to the fee structure of parking on the street vs. parking behind store lots, and will there be a premium for parking on the street?Mr. Jones explained the study looked at six different alternatives, including expanding or reducing the area of "pay-for-parking" to using all parking meters and using all pay stations as solutions. The study consistently recognized that the Plaza area is where the highest parking rate should be charged. The alternatives reflect that. A specific alternative in that fee structure is not being brought forward at this time as part of any recommendation.Commissioner Romero asked if a plan has been discussed as to the number of employee parking spaces being designated for each of the businesses?Mr. Jones said the study focused on the ultimate relocation of many of the employees in the Downtown Plaza area. If enough employees could relocate out into the free parking lots such as the Lemon Street lot and Depot lot, it would free up parking in the Downtown area for customers. The Committee felt if the pay for parking concept was approved, it should not have time limits. Employees could then park anywhere in Downtown area as long as they were willing to pay the rate.Commissioner Romero asked about parking permits rather than employees using coins or meters.Mr. Jones said the study looked at the special users in the Downtown area who might need parking permits, but the concept has not been finalized.Commissioner Carlton wondered how many cars the Chapman University parking structure could accommodate. (Approximately 300 parking spaces.) She was trying to get a relationship of the cost of a parking structure for so many cars vs. how many years it will take to pay for a structure. using the funds generated from the pay-for-parking program.Mr. Jones explained 100 cars times $7,000 will give an approximate cost of a parking structure for 100 cars. That calculation is based on today's cost.Bernie Dennis, Parking Study consultant, spoke about the parking structure and the costs associated with it. There are two factors involved for revenue projections for pay parking. First is occupancy and secondly, the fee. They calculated occupancy from 30% to 100%. In a worst case situation, if every parking stall in the Downtown was occupied only 30% of the time and the fee was 50 cents an hour, the pay parking would generate $153,000 a year for the first 10 years. After that, it would generate a $174,000 a year. A more realistic eXj)ectation would be somewhere in the 60% occupancy level. That would indicate a first year Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Commissioner Carlton asked about the possibility of getting a grant or matching funds for all or part of the funding to help finance a parking structure. Mr. Dennis said that possibility would be very slim as there is too much competition for that kind of money. Private developers have expressed an interest to come in and build a parking structure, oversee its operation and then over time, give it back to the City. He reiterated at the present time there is enough parking, but it is mis-managed. Parking needs to be re-distributed to all lots on an equal basis.Commissioner Pruett understood that the parking meter revenue is really going to be the first step in trying to manage the parkinQ problem. Some of the revenues can go towards the parking structure, but there is also the in-lieu parking fees that would go toward additional parking. And that parking could go towards the parking structure. The money generated to build the parking structure will come from new development or the demand for new parking - not the existing parking.Mr. Dennis explained parking revenue could be generated in two ways: by parking meters where customers are helping to fund parking and through the in.lieu fees. The in-lieu parking fees are going to generate $140,000. The balance will need to be made up through parking meters. By implementing the new parking concepts, it will self.fund parking improvements in the Downtown area.Commissioner Pruett asked when setting forth the formula for imposing the in- lieu fee on development Downtown, what is that measured against? Is public parking allocated per lot or per square foot of the building? How is the current parking allocated to the different businesses or properties Downtown so that when a development comes in, the City knows there is going to be an impact on that property?Mr. Jones said there were a variety of situations Downtown. Most of the businesses probably don't have any private parking as part of their projects. If someone comes in and they want to take out one office or retail use and put in another office or retail use, there is no impact. If someone comes in and they want to take a retail or office space, which has a parking requirement of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, and convert it to a restaurant, which has a parking requirement of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, staff would look at the square feet of the restaurant. If it is 1,000 square feet, that's a change from 5 to 10. The applicant may have two spaces that already exists. The difference between what is currently provided and what the parking requirement is would be the number they would have to contribute. There are no allocated public parking spaces in Downtown.Chairman Bosch said the staff report suggests there be a waiting period if this plan were adopted before the in-lieu parking fee were implemented. That waiting period was attached to until 75 additional parking spaces were consumed by increased impacts. He asked where the 75 figure came from and what IS the threshold that caused that number to be selected?Mr. Jones responded the 75 figure was looking back over the last couple of years and that was the number that was absorbed. They felt the Downtown could absorb 75 spaces before there were further parking problems. That was based on quantity of parking spaces available for the land use rather than on the management problems.Chairman Bosch addressed the financing of the parking structure. He wanted to know the effect of the in-lieu fee is on the parking structure. To what extent does the in-lieu fee in the projections of in-lieu fee receipt drive the financing capability for the parking structure, regardless of need?Mr. Dennis said if the real cost of a parking structure is $7,000, the City cannot charge the "last guy in" the total cost to solve the parking problems. They can only "fee" or "charge" his contribution to the problem.The parking replenishment fee could accommodate the cost of additional parking. The revenues that would be generated by the pay for parking concept could pay for the parking structure regardless of the in-lieu fee.Chairman Bosch asked at what point in the pay for parking revenue stream is a track record established that is satisfactory to secure financing for the parking structure over time rather than waiting until all the money is accumulated? Is there a track record in other cities?Mr. Jones said they have not looked specifically at how Planning Commission Minutes November 3. 1997 Chairman Bosch said it would be helpful to hear what happened to the old parking management plan intheDowntownareajustafewyearsago. There was a permit program for office tenants and owners whopurchasedpermitsfortheiremployees. This was an attempt to move them out of the customer orientedparkingareaswithimplementationoflimitsonhourlyparking. Why didn't this work? Mr. Dennis said the ownersltenants were required to provide more parking than they were physically abl~to on-site or that they could obtain easily adjacent to the area. In an effort to encourage development, It was just assumed that they could use the municipal parking lots. Thatwon't work for 300 users. Thefirstparkingmanagementplanwasanefforttoseparateoutthecustomersfromtheemployeesfromtheowners. This was done with the parking permit program. A number of lots in the City weredesignatedpermitparking" and these were the less desirable parkin~ stalls further away from businesses. The permits cost $120 a year. The City probably sold 400 permits a year. The enforcement of the timelimitsinthemunicipalparkinglotsandpermitparkingstallsstartedtodwindlebecauseofbudgetconstraints.The last time he checked, permits were down to under 100 applicants a year. But, the parkingdemandhasincreased. Enforcement needs to be an absolute necessity if the parking management plan isgoingto work.Chairman Bosch asked why should a current owner or tenant want to participate in this kind of program?Mr. Dennis said a good business person will anticipate what his needs will be in the future. Ri~ht nowhehasthebestofallworlds -- free, convenient parking. If the City decides the Downtown, as it IS today, isallthatanyonewants, then they should forego any further talk of meters or pay parking. If, however, theCitywantstoseetheDowntowncommunitygrow, then the City needs to plan for that. And, parking is anintegralissueinvolvedinthatgrowth. The Committee felt they wanted managed growth that wascompatibletotheexistingbusinessesandwouldalsoattractnewclienteleintothearea. Commissioner Smith asked if people were to come before the City in five years and ask for $2.1 millionforaparkingstructure, they would have a pretty good chance of getting it, given the fact that three blocksupthestreetalocalinstitutionhasrecentlygotten $1.3 million for their own parking structure for sharedandprivateuse. What is the City's commitment to the growth of the Downtown area, and is there anydiscussionunderwayaboutwhattheCityisplanningtodoinmatchingfundsforwhatthepublicisaskedtodobasedonthein-lieu fees and the pay parking?Mr. Jones was not aware of any budget for a parking structure in the Downtown area. Staff's attempthasbeentoremovesomeoftheadministrativehurdlestogrowthintheDowntownbycreatingthisfeeandnotputsomeonethroughaparking variance.Commissioner Smith did not understand why the City would go through all the negotiations, planningandexpensetoremoveanadministrativehurdle (variance) in this way that is so costly to the consumer.Mr. Jones said the other options are to continue to grant parking variances with no impact and basicallynoplanforfuturereplacementofparkingrelatedtoaparticularapplicant's proposal to expand abusiness,or to modify or reduce the parking standards. The Committee felt the fee was the fairest waytoapproachtheparking problems.Commissioner Smith asked how the in-lieu parking proposal not serve as a deterrentordiscouragementtogrowthofDowntownbusiness? Will this take away small business possibilitiesfromtheneighborhood? The buildings take up most of the land, so how can that be comparedtodevelopmentthatwasbuiltwithparkingrequirementsinplace? Not enough attention is paid to the factthatthisbusinessdistrictisinthemiddleofadenseresidentialarea, and maybe even the parkingdemand __ the code shouldn't be applied the same way it is to places that the only way you can get there is bycar. She didn't see the equity in penalizing some one for wanting to start a business in the Downtown area.Mr. Dennis offered the following example: If he were a business owner on Tustin and he cameinandaskedthePlanningCommissionfora50% parking variance, he would be out the door infiveminutes.That is not done and the variance would not be granted. On the other hand, that isprettycommonpracticeintheDowntownarea. They cannot physically provide the parking in the Downtownarea. So they are treated differently. There is a municipal parking code that does not differentiatebetweenareasoftheCity. This is the first step in that Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Mr. Jones thought the Committee looked at this from a comprehensive standpoint and one of theconcernswasthatthereneededtobesomemechanismtoaddmoreparkingovertime. And, the in-lieu fee is fair. If additional parking is not addressed, eventually the City would feel the impact. If parkingisnotconvenientandavailable, every business is going to suffer.Commissioner Pruett said the difference in Downtown is that a person is renting with no guaranteetherewillbeparkingbecauseparkingdoesnotbelongtothepropertyowner. They are trusting that theCitywillhavesufficientparkingtheretomeettheneedsofthat business.Commissioner Carlton asked if Redevelopment funds might be available for the parking structure?Victoria Cleary, Economic Development, stated Redevelopment funds would be available forparkingstructures. Specifically, tax exempt funds because it would be for a public purpose. However, the Redevelopment Agency has not experienced the increment growth that it did during the 80'swhenpropertyvalueswererisingatrapidrates. Therefore, they are now looking to other sources offunding.Community Development Block Grant funds were requested and approved to providelightingimprovementsintheNorthwestareaofOldTowne, thereby freeing up other funds for a parkingstructureandotherimprovements. The Redevelopment Agency can also float a bond to finance the structureifthereisadequaterevenuefloworinrevenuegenerateddirectlyfrompeoplepayingtousethat parking.RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.The public hearing was opened for public comments:AI Ricci. 616 East ChaDman, is the President of the Property Owners Association in Downtown and he understandswhypeoplewouldbeagainstparkingmeters. Why pay for something they are getting for freenow? Old Towne is changing. With all the new growth, there is no additional parking and the current parkingisnotwelldistributed. All funds from the parking meters would be used to improve the Plaza.Theparkinglotstodayarearesultoftheparkingmetersused20yearsagoinDowntown. The installation ofpayparkingisaplanningissue. It's a plan for the present to attract a higher and more diverse user DowntownandtoacquireadditionalparkinginthefutureandfundimprovementsthatareneededtomakethePlazaaviablealternativeforthewholeCity. The parking meters were never intended to fund a parkingstructure; only partially. The parking structure is envisioned to have retail shops on the bottom,perhapsamovietheateronthetopandthoseuserswouldhelpfundtheparkingstructureinadditiontoRedevelopmentandparkingmeterfunds.Lisa Blanc. resident at 368 South Oranoe and business owner at 122 North Glassell Street. spoke in favoroftheparkingprogram. There are many short-term parking issues that need to be addressedimmediately, but other issues cannot be implemented for some time. Old Towne is an unique area with aneedforaveryuniqueparkingprogram -- one that addresses short and long term needs. A Halloween eventwasheldinOldTownefastThursdayandtherewereinexcessof3,000 children and their families whoattended. She heard traffic was backed up from the Plaza to Katella. and from the Plaza to Tustin justtogetintothePlaza. Downtown Orange needs a parking program to provide a plan for managing thefutureparkingissuesthatareinevitable.Judv Schroeder. 1041 North Elizabeth Place, lives over Watson's Drug Store and she is an artist. She believedeveryoneneedstotalkopenlyabouttheseissues. She is a tenant and is part of the problem.ShewouldratherparkonOrangeStreetandwalk10or12stepstothestairsthantoparkacoupleofmilesaway. She has to pay to paint in other areas such as Irvine Park or Alisso Beach.Adrienne Gladson. 700 East Lake Drive #97. is a frequent user of the Plaza and is not opposed to paying forparking. She pays to park at ball games; it's a privilege. By creating additional spaces in the Plaza,therewillbeanewperceptionofhavingmoreparkin9spacesavailable. It will give the merchants or residentsachancetospeaktothevisitorswhoarepaYingtoparkandvisitthePlaza. This program pays itsownwayandimplementsaplantoimprovetheDowntownareawithouthavingtoaskformoneyfromtheGeneralFund.Fred Gillett. 205 East Palmvra, represented the Board of the Old Towne Preservation Association, who unanimouslysupportedtheDowntownParkingMeterProgram.5 Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Lisa Ackerman. is a business owner at 151 North Glassell. and has seen a lot of change in Downtown. She didn't think anyone wanted Downtown to become a Third Street Promenade, but they realize there is room for different types of retail and other services. She is personally proud of the fact Orange is the antique capital of Southern California. She sees new uses in Downtown could be good for the area. But the City needs to plan for this. The concept of "pay your own way" makes sense to her and she realizes there needs to be mitigation regarding handicap parking, loading zones, fair user fees for employees and merchants, but these details can be worked out. She felt if they didn't plan for success, then they are doomed for failure. Robert Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. Orange, served on the Parking Committee and supports their recommendation. Jack Hellesen. 836 North California Street. said his wife served on the Project 2000 Committee 12 years ago. That committee covered recommendations for Old Towne and parking in addition to enhancement of the community and access to freeways. He has not seen a great deal of change in the last 12 years. He asked what the City was thinking about when they approved the block grant for Chapman to build a parking structure for a law school? He felt the money the City put up for Chapman University's parking structure could have been used for Downtown's parking problems. Hank Mascolo. 1459 North Blake. has seen parking meters come and go. When they left, that was the best thing that ever happened. He was opposed to parking meters and felt this would keep people away from the Plaza area. The taxpayers should have a say so in this matter. Barbara DeNiro. address on file, opposed parking meters. She believed years back there was talk of a parking structure and she asked if the money was used to retrofit the Old Towne buildings. She asked what the cost was for the Traffic Study and who paid for that? Is there a selective process only for Old Towne? She disliked being compared to Santa Monica and Pasadena because she felt Orange was more unique. There was a great concern of using part of the sidewalks for business in Old Towne. When a developer builds outside of town, they have to provide for their own parking regardless of what it costs. Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer. called different cities to see if they had parking meters. She provided the Commission with her survey. She suggested the City use Chapman University's parking lot. The parking lots in Downtown are not filled; only the Senior Citizens' parking lot. She felt that the Lemon Street parking lot was unsafe because of poor lighting. She submitted a petition of 2,634 signatures who opposed the parking program. She also questioned the time limits for handicap parking. Karl Bonham. 575 Van Bibber, remembered the old meters and remembered what old Downtown use to look like when there were meters. Did the study consider the stress of the merchants? A parking meter is not friendly. He suggested a privately owned parking structure or bond financing. Joe Beckman. 121 1/2 North Glassell #13. has been a resident of the Circle for seven years. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. II There isn't a problem with parking. He came home from work during the Halloween event last Thursday and there was plenty of parking everywhere. There is disparity between the number of people who were not consulted and who were not part of the process. He is a tenant and is part of the solution. There is no need for a parking structure. Rve years from now there will be a customer base strong enough to support a structure, but right now there isn't. Janice Swift. 10 Plaza is a business owner on the Plaza. They have been running a business for profit and would like to continue doing so. They were one of the first owners to put money back into the building and many other property owners have also fixed up their properties. She has employees and is labor intensive. One of her rules is that when it gets dark, all the women employees are to move closer into the parking spots nearest the building because there is a safety problem. She will not have her employees walking from the Lemon Street parking lot. There have been prior assaults on that street. Her parking lot does get full, but she has seen other parking lots and they are only half full in the middle of the day. What happened to the enforcement of the parking spots? As a C.P.A., she didn't understand where the money is going. Carlos Galleaos. 30 Plaza, has a barbershop in the Plaza. The freedom to park brings business. If you want to see a merchant go broke, punish the customers. 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Lisa White. 129 North Glassell. thought parking meters will ruin the quaintness of Old Towne and will hurt business. She will not walk to the Lemon Street parking lot at night. She believed there needs to be more signs to show where parking lots are. Pedestrian crossings arso need help. Nate Wisely. 215 South Dunas. watched what happened to Santa Ana due to parking. Once before Orange had parking meters and that was a huge complaint of the businesses. He thought Orange was charming and he likes how it has been preserved. Parking meters, aesthetically, do not add anything to the charm of Old Towne. He was in favor of looking ahead and suggested using Redevelopment funds or a private builder-operator to come in, build the structure, meet the specifications and take the burde. n off of the taxpayers and businesses. Downtown has browsing businesses n parking meters Will discourage this type of business.Robb Morris. 420 East Walnut Avenue. represented a group of people in Downtown Orange that has 600 members -- The Elks. They're not new comers and they believe this is just an enforcement problem. He can't see parking meters supporting a parking structure. He sees owners' or employees' cars parked in front of the businesses at 12 noon. The customers cannot park in those spaces because the owners and employees have them tied up. This is a browsing community of sales and it is going to be monitored by parking meters. Gerald Perez. 737 North Lemon Street, spoke about the traffic flow in the Plaza and thought there will be added congestion from people waiting for a parking space. Because of parking meters, people will not come Downtown. He asked what the City will do with the parking meters during the Street Fair? Will the fees be waived during this event? Arnold Behroman. 1133 East Mardell, had a business on GlasseU for 32 years and was in business during the parking meter days. He found when the parking meters were taken out, his business went up 20%. By putting parking meters in, the City will chase people out of Downtown. The public hearing was dosed. Chairman Bosch asked if the parking proposal was one that also includes within it changes in traffic circulation in the area? Mr. Jones didn't believe the proposal includes any changes to the circulation. Commissioner Romero wanted to know what the current vacancy rate is in Old Towne. Mr. Jones said within a commercial core there is a certain percentage of buildings that are vacant, but he didn't know what the percentage is in Downtown at this time. Commissioner Smith needed more information about the in-lieu parking fee and asked what the saturation point is for the first new merchant to use the parking fee.Mr. Jones explained the parking standards associated with each of the uses (retail, office, restaurant). If all the existing uses are covered by the existing parking circumstances, there are no additional impacts and no fees are needed to be paid. It would apply for a new user where it is taking over an existing office or retail use for a restaurant and is doubling the parking demand. The in-lieu parking fee is used only when someone intensifies or adds to the parking demand of that area.Commissioner Smith asked if new businesses come in with a more intense use, would the City absolve 75 parking places, and when it went over 75 that were needed, then the City would start the in-lieu parking fee program? If a parking plan were put into effect, would handicap parking change in the Downtown area?Mr. Jones said there was concern of imposing a fee right now as it might discourage new businesses from coming in. After two years and if the Downtown were in a better economic pOSition, the City could impose the fee. He believed more handicap parking would be provided than what is available now.The State does not allow meters to be placed in Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Commissioner Pruett commented in reviewing the petitions he saw a lot of signatures from other areas in Orange County and other states. Downtown is well known and it is attractive to customers throughout Southern California and other parts of the country. He felt the need for parking is being driven by the fact that businesses in Downtown are doing a very good job of attracting people to the community. There were several concerns expressed by those opposed to the parking fee that raises some concerns. But the concerns raised are concerns that are really mitigated by the parking fee such as safety of the Lemon Street lot. Funds raised would go to mitigate the safety issues of lighting, patrol, etc. that would make that lot a safer place to park. He also heard about the need to enforce parking. Others voiced their opinion about turning over the parking in the Plaza after one hour. He was confused by the opposition that many of their concerns are really addressed by what is being proposed. Parkin~ meters are one mechanism to making the parking program happen. If people looked at the broad picture of parking and the things the City is trying to accomplish, this is not such a bad strategy to get out of the gate to see if parking can be managed in the Downtown area. If it doesn't work, modifications can be made. Commissioner Carlton tried to listen to both sides of this issue and she appreciates the time that has gone into the plan by the Committee. She was not convinced there is not alternative funding for this kind of project. She suggested a private developer build the parking structure on land furnished by the City. She felt there were too many issues to make a decision at this hearing and she needs more information. She didn't look at the parking program as a profit making enterprise for the City. Mr. Dennis responded to the private contractor/developer building the parking structure. He is going to charge people to park. Surrounding parking areas are free. It is feasible to assume the contractor/developer would be hesitant to get into that kind of situation. For a privately funded parking structure to work, the City needs to make sure the environment in that area is conducive to force people to park in the parking structure. The study does not suggest people pay to park in the structure. There has to be an inducement to bring people Into a privately owned parking structure. You can't charge for something you are giving away free across the street. Regarding the previous parking meters, the City entered into an agreement with the Downtown merchants to acquire municipal off-street parking lots using the revenue from the parking meters. Once those lots were provided, the meters were taken out.Chairman Bosch said a lot of questions were asked and the key one was when to start such a parking program. Why start today?Mr. Dennis said they were talking about a plan that will exist for perhaps 5, 6 or 7 years. At the onset,several questions and issues need to be resolved. There needs to be an answering body to do that and it is suggested to form a Downtown Parking Commission by the people who constitute that area.The Committee has suggested a set of rates to be used for the meters, but a Commission needs to address the rates to make sure they are feasible. He anticipates two years of planning before a parking structure is built and is ready to be used.Chainnan Bosch wanted to know if there was a sunset clause included in parking program?Mr. Dennis replied a sunset clause was not included in the study, but that was an excellent point and probably should be.Chairman Bosch believed there was a misconception about what a meter system is. What the Commission saw in a Study Session a couple of months ago was the modern meter system, which is not a meter at every space. It would be helpful if the system could be described to inform those in the audience. How many spaces does a pay station serve given the configuration seen from the study?Mr. Dennis explained the Committee recommends alternative 6 and they envision parking meters on the street and pay stations in the parking lots. The pay stations are unique in that you leave your car and go to the pay station and deposit your money, debit or credit card and the machine then gives you a receipt and tells you when you need to return. Enforcement officers would query the pay station and it would tell them which parking stalls, by number, are in violation. Pay stations and parking meters are about 50/ 50.The Committee feels it would have been advantageous to do the entire City in pay stations.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Dennis about handicap and senior citizen parking. He believed the study indicated recommendations that parking spaces be set aside after studied to determine the right number and location for free parking for senior citizens and the disabled. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Mr. Dennis said State law dictates that any time a parking lot is improved, that lot must be brought up to the current handicap standards. Loading zones for merchants are also ~oing to be included in the municipal parking lots. At this point in time, there is no proviso for senior citizens to get a discount or a rate at the parking meters or pay stations. However, the senior citizen parking lot is not in the fee area and that lot would be kept free. Chairman Bosch asked how the monitoring program would be implemented? Is the cost of the monitoring program included in the proforma that leads to the cash flow projections for funding the improvements? (Yes.) Mr. Dennis explained they would start out with x number of parking spaces and as development occurs, they will determine how much of the existing parking supply is utilized. As it gets to the critical level, then there are a number of things that can be done. They could immediately start planning to increase the parking supply. One of the alternatives suggested is a partnership between private and public parking. That 's a very real possibility. Chairman Bosch was having trouble with another Commission. He understands the Committee worked long and hard to try and arrive at the best way to include involvement of local residents in the immediate area, the merchants, the property owners, etc. that is impacted by a parking program. The City needs to have something that focuses clearly on the parking issues. That needs more study. Mr. Jones responded there are other ways of providing the over sight and guidance to implement the parking program. The Parking Commission is one way the Committee felt comfortable in recommending the parking program. Other alternatives that could be considered would be to have a specialized staff person (Project Manager) do the implementation with some kind of Downtown Advisory Committee that continues to provide the input from the merchants and property owners and residents in the Downtown area. Chairman Bosch said enforcement was brought up a lot. Time limits are posted all over town and there is a lack of enforcement. What needs to be done to identify the benefits and causes of not having enforcement in place now and how it is that remedied, not for the revenue but for the parking management. That seems to be a major challenge that is being avoided. Mr. Jones stated the Committee has had discussion about enforcement as part of whatever program that is approved. Enforcement personnel is not staffed to deal with this type of enforcement and the City will be In a position of having to come up with additional funds to provide the additional enforcement. Additional enforcement personnel are part of the costs of administering any pay for parking concept. Mr. Dennis stated enforcement is the absolute key to make the parking management program work. If they don't have that, there will be no change in the Downtown area. Chairman Bosch asked who paid for the parking study consulting and how much did it cost? Mr. Jones replied the City has paid for the consultant's assistance on the parking study and the costs at that time were just over $5,000 for almost two years of assistance. Chairman Bosch said they heard a lot of talk about if the City could afford to assist Chapman University as part of a package to keep its uses in town in proximity to the Downtown area, why can't the City afford to fund the parking structure out of the General Fund or from Redevelopment dollars within the Downtown area. That was moving ahead before, but the pressing need of seismic retrofit at the time took the priority and economic changes have occurred. This whole study has been driven by the urgent desire of many residents who expressed to the City Council to have any program for improvements in the Downtown area pay for itself. The answer to his question is self evident. Isn't it possible given appropriate identification of revenues through tax increment that occurs by encouraging new businesses to come into the Downtown, although they may cause a parking problem, assist in creating the fundingbasisforredevelopmentparticipationinthisandalsotherecould, over time, with budgeting and recognition of economic growth and funds available, funds could be prioritized in the General Fund towards the parking structure as well, but recognizing there is no guarantee on time of delivery. 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Mr. Dennis thought the impression is that there hasn't been any money spent in the Downtown area. And, obviously that is not correct. There was a decision made in regard to the seismic retrofit as opposed to buildin~ a parking structure. There was another significant amount of money spent on the mortuary plan that IS currently in place in the Downtown area with the various seating arrangements and trash containers. Chairman Bosch addressed the safety issue. Mr. Dennis mentioned that funding has been found with the assistance of Public Works to assist in lighting the Northwest quadrant. Clearly this discussion has had one benefit and that is to focus attention on some pressing needs and identifying resources beginning with that safety need, as well as exploring the whole problem. A little bit has occurred on signage as well within the overall Sign Maintenance Program. Are there any other factors that are moving up in priority because of the focus that the citizens are placing on these issues? Mr. Jones was not aware of any other issues directly related to parking. There is an effort under way by the City to do some improvements in the Plaza area related to the Plaza itself and the four quadrants around the Plaza. Chairman Bosch didn't like parking meters either. He didn't like attacking the General Fund or raising taxes and he would like to find a better way. He thought everyone needed to work together and someone asked about where's the accountability and involvement for the citizens. It's in the entire process and that's why it takes so much time to move these ahead. No problem comes forward without some group of citizens believing there is a problem and bringing it forward to the public forum. It's fair to say the people may be on different sides of an issue, but without someone raising the issue, there is no progress. The accountability is showing up. It doesn't mean everyone is going to agree, but there is a good playing field to move these issues forward. Parking meters are a fairly miserable solution if there are other options available. If it is the only solution available, pay for parking is probably the only way the City can do things. He hoped that with an improved economy, the Increased value seen in the eyes of the merchants for the Old Towne area and the boost that it brings, the fairness of implementing some type of in-lieu parking fee for changes in land use intensity that wouldn't penalize just a change over from one like business to another and therefore wouldn't damage the current property owners. He thought with the growing awareness and the talents and staff to find sources of funding and programs including proper direction of maintenance and replacement fees and outside sources to help fund some of the problems to reduce the overall size of the problem, that a lot of progress can be made. The basic question comes down to, "Can they identify a way, other than fee parking, to establish a method of funding a parkin~ structure by the time it is really necessary?" Along the way, part of that is how to stretch that time if pOSSible until people feel they understand that there is accountability and safety in the funding mechanisms, that the priorities for spending of revenues are kept in tact and the monies cannot be filtered off for other uses that are not related to what they are pushing for, and that the increase in value is utilized to assist in paying for the improvements. For short term, they need to have more of the special focused projects, first of which has been the lighting and sign age improvements. The key, however, is enforcement of the regulations. Then, they need to identify a safe and sure threshold of when they have to use other collection mechanisms which is probably a pay-for-parking system. He didn't know when that date is. It needs to be incorporated into the plan and officially adopted by the City. Problems need to be solved before implementing the next step of the plan. People can continue to say, "Let it pay for itself without any further input of City funds via tax dollars to the General Fund or Redevelopment increment." Then, the City will have to go to a pay-for-parking program and he' s not sure whether the citizens are ready to do that. He would like to see a focus on sunset provisions for fee parking relative to what it funds. He would like to see a lock-in on the priorities and disbursement projects for funds that will come in. He would like to see a monitoring program that is better defined and exactly how it would determine when thresholds occur when pieces of the system are implemented. He was very uncomfortable with the Commission. He would like to see some other approach through a very focused,project-oriented citizens advisory committee with appropriate staff support that is funded through some program now in place to avoid additional staff costs. He would like to see the enforcement solution built In along with the short-range solutions that the City is now implementing - particularly the safety access and orientation methods part of the study to move ahead. He also needs to see more work, not where the money comes from and where does it go, but when to start the threshold based upon these other increments of the plan being in place and demonstrating effectiveness to better focus in on when the City needs to, if ever, charge for parking. Then, along the way, try to look at prioritization of funds through Redevelopment increment as the economy improves and through incremental progress on the Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Commissioner Carlton had a question about a recommendation on Page 24 that was not discussed. That was a feasibility study for acquisition of more commercial property and this is specifically between the North Orange Street parking lot, which is not a very big area. Has there been a study done on what land might be available just for street grade parking and not doing a parking structure? Has a survey been done on acquiring lots in the area being talked about? Mr. Jones did not think an actual study has been done of the availability of the lots. What has been analyzed is: What are the existing resources. Where are the existing lots. What are the possib!l!tie~ in terms of maximizing the parking opportunities in and around those lot areas. There was an identification of some of the parcels that should be evaluated over time to see if they can be acquired, if it makes sense. Commissioner Carlton would be interested in hearing more about this kind of study. Apparently the Committee identified one lot and she would like to know if there are others in three to four years if 25 or 50 spaces are needed. This can be done in increments. Chairman Bosch said it was important when building a parking structure to have an adequate footprint, shape and size to get a good yield of parking. At the same time, he didn't want to take away commercially viable property to park. That's a self-defeating thing after a period of time. So, it does take more study.Commissioner Smith was in favor of a boost to business in Orange, no matter where it is located. She was not in favor of meters in front of the National Register buildings. She was in favor of some metered lots, and was definitely in favor of enforcement. If parking were enforced, it would be shocking to everyone to have to watch the clock a little bit. It's not right that employees or beauty college students are taking the best parking spots Downtown, and she thought enforcement might help clean that up. She was not 100% in favor of the in-lieu parking proposal, but was warming up to it. With the window of opportunity that is proposed, she would be willing to give it a try on a limited basis, followed by evaluation and adjusted implementation. The sunset clause is a very good suggestion. She wanted to make sure this is not a deterrent to new business, but actually stimulates growth and success in the area.There needs to be a little more work done on where employees and owners would actually park. It sounds like the Lemon Street alternative parking lot for employees is not a very good plan. She hasn't heard much about the use of a shuttle for employees parking in outlying areas. She was a little nervous about $1.00 an hour for parking in Orange. Paying that much money would be a deterrent to people.Usually people get a break on parking the longer they stay. She thought the pay stations should be designed in a style that was complimentary to the Plaza Historic District. If they are not complimentary to the historic architecture, it will compromise everything they have worked for in the Old Towne Design Standards. She also had a safety concern about the parking meters on Chapman and Glassell during the Street Fair. It's so crowded and she thought the City would be worried about the liability of people tripping on them, strollers running into them, people backing up over them. She complimented the Committee's hard work and a lot of volunteer time, which outweighs the investment of $5,000. There's almost too much information for her and she was uncomfortable. Usually the Planning Commission works out the details and forwards it to the City Council for approval. In this case, the Commission has been asked to send it forward for the details. There are too many unanswered questions. She would like more study on owner/employee parking. Maybe they can buy permits or have specially marked spots to park in. She was not ready to make a decision at this meeting. Seismic retrofit has been mentioned in lieu of a parking structure. The seismic retrofit was something mandated by the State of California and the City was pushed by legislation to do that.Commissioner Pruett works in downtown L.A. and pays $22 a day to park where he does. He also complimented the Committee for the work they have done. The alternatives in the report all call for parking meters on the street. Maybe there is a need to come back with a proposal that looks at limited parking on on-street for maybe an hour. Then, in the lots there are the pay stations for people who are going to be staying for longer than an hour. He said the parking meters in the downtown area of the City of Anaheim are limited to 15 or 30 minutes. The parking structure has a limit of 20 minutes and parking is strictly enforced with patrol officers. Their effort is to move people off street and into the parking structure. There can be a strategy where the people who are going to be in Downtown for an extended period of time, can be moved off into the off-street parking locations. Something may be able to be worked out to where employees/owners may be able to park at a different rate or have a sticker that would exempt them from the fees. . He also thought they needed to move forward with this, but the issue is how to implement the program in a timely way Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 Chairman Bosch recommended the Committee take this one step further and answer some of t~e questions and concerns raised at this meeting. There are a couple of recommendations: If the City decides to go with the pay for parking concept, then here's the best program for doing that. Then, solve the rough issues, the hard corners, the monitoring provisions, the threshold provisions, etc. and co~e back with a final recommendation. If the City determines, as its direction in the future, to fund the parking in some other manner, then that's great too. Then, they have done the best they can to see what's going to happen in the near future to get better ideas as the City moves ahead to implement the program. RECESS. Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 10:35 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 10:40p.m.Mr. Jones stated the Committee briefly discussed the matter during the break and feels a 60 day continuance would allow them enough time to come back with the answers to the Commission's questions.That would be January 5, 1998.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue the Downtown Parking Study, Ordinance Amendment 5-97, to the meeting of January 5, 1998 in order for the Committee to respond to the concerns raised and fine tune the proposal. Also, to inform the interested parties with any new information that comes up ahead of time so that everyone can continue to engage in constructive dialogue prior to the hearing. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3. ORB APPEAL 2-97 (ORB #3223) CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUILDING - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY A review of final architectural plans, or "progress prints" for an approved four-story, 90,000 square-foot classroom, laboratory and office structure on the Chapman University campus. As an extension of D.R.B. Appeal No. 2-97, the Planning Commission is asked to consider more building elevations for use of finish materials and articulation of detail. The Planning Commission granted approval of preliminary building elevations at a meeting on July 21, 1997. The site is located on the southeast corner of Glassell and Sycamore.There was no opposition to this item and the public hearing was opened.Aoolicant AI McQuilkin. 333 North Glassell, presented plans to the Commission some months ago for their new Business & Information Technol09Y Building. The ORB denied their application for three reasons: Non-compliance with Old Towne DeSign Standards, building mass not in conformance with the graduated height contour of the Specific Plan, and design not compatible with adjacent buildings. Chapman University appealed the ORB's decision to the Planning Commission because they felt the building met the required guidelines contained in the SpecifiC Plan, but at the same time they took their comments very seriously, as well as comments from the community during the hearing process. They continued to refine the exterior design of the building and presented to the Planning Commission a somewhat revised plan on July 21, 1997, incorporating some of the comments they heard from the ORB and community. The revised plan has been further developed through the normal process of designing a building and in developing the drawings. The Commission acknowledged the plan did meet the intent of the Specific Plan requirements. The Commission expressed concern that the detail that went into the west side of the building didn't appear to carry through to the east side of the building. It was noted the stone base was missing. So, they have revised their renderings to address the Commission's concerns. They are presenting the specific details of the building to demonstrate that further articulation meets the intent of the approval.Doua Dworsky. architect, 3530 Wilshire Blvd.. Suite 1000. Los Angeles, has been refining the exterior design of the building and showed the Commission some of those developments. The refinements focus on the extent of the east elevation. They also have refinement in terms of materials and colors of the exterior. There was also refinement of the landscape plan to enhance and reinforce some Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1997 positive direction the design is trying to achieve for the campus. He presented a new rendering of the east elevation. There was considerable effort to bring into harmony all sides of the building to represent one statement, one architectural vocabulary that is consistent around the building. The east elevation incorporates several modifications such as window types and proportions, incorporation of detail of recessed pilasters, development of cornice elements, and they brought in some planting elements to some of the upper levels ot the building to soften portions of the building. They also brought the stone, as a base element, around the building. The tower faces inward to the campus and is not along the Glassell elevation. They attempted to compose the tower so that it feels much more integrated with the rest of the building, rather than a cage sitting on top of the building. Materials and colors were displayedandalandscapeplanwaspresented. He distributed details of the exterior renderings to the Commission for their review. The Commission discussed the trees along Sycamore and asked questions as to the size and variety of the trees. There was concern on the Glassell side of the building about protection or articulation to protect the exit doors from the stairway to the north of the building entrance. Chapman will provide a transition from the building to the sidewalk by using structured planters. The applicant wants to acquiretheplantmaterial (minimum of 36" box) early and possibly contract grow to let them mature until they can be planted. The height ot the tower was questioned; it's a 90 foot tower. Inside the tower is a stairwell and the tower glass will be frosted. The landscape plans are scheduled to go back to the DesignReviewBoard. The Commission would like to approve the landscape plans in concept and defer the size of the Magnolia trees to the Design Review Board. The landscape plans that were presented seem to be complimentary and appropriate for the building. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to find the modified plans, buildingmaterials, building plan elevations, and landscape concept plan, to be in conformance with the previous approval of the Planning Commission and incorporating the recommended modifications set forth by the Planning Commission at that hearing; and stipulate that the applicant will return to the Design Review Board with the final landscape plan, given this approval is for the conceptual plan presented before the Commission for selection and placement of plant materials. That the landscape plans, softscape or hardscape, be modified at the west entrance to provide a three dimensional element that defines and screens the emergency exit doors towards Glassell Street. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to the next regularlyscheduledPlanningCommissionMeeting. The meeting adjourned at 11 :35 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 13 l