Loading...
2005 - December 5 Planning Commission Minutes ~a.50D-~.~'~ December 5, 2005 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: December 5, 2005 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett, and Bonina None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Alice Angus, Community Development Director Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461-03 AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 300-03 - ORANGE CITY MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Chair Bonina reminded the Commissioners this item was Continued from the last meeting. He mentioned additional information was asked for which was the basis for the Continuance. He said they would hear this Item in conjunction with Item Number Four since they were closely related, and would hear them simultaneously. He stated the first item would be Item Three on the Agenda. INRE: NEW HEARINGS: Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2533-05, AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4001-05 - GRACE CHURCH OF ORANGE. Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, explained the project request was for a minor addition in square footage to the church property located in the City's southerly limits. She provided a full reading ofthe Staff Report to the Planning Commission. She mentioned the Design Review Committee had reviewed the project, and recommended approval of the proposal. She also stated that Staff supports this project and included Standard Conditions for the project. Chair Bonina asked if there was a timeline to be looked at in regard to the relocation of the modular buildings. Ms. Fox replied the applicant's response was that once the west side was built, there would be no need for the modular buildings, but was unsure of the timeframe when this would happen, but the applicant could answer this. Chair Bonina asked if there would be parking for the church use along Breezy Way. Ms. Fox stated there was no specific parking for the church, and if it did occur, it was not through the permission of the City. Chair Bonina asked ifthere were complaints relative to people parking on Breezy Way. Ms. Fox replied there hadn't been any complaints. The two inquiries the City received were general questions regarding the project. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Darrin Schoolmeester. applicant. He provided general background on Grace Church. He pointed out that the application was a small part of a phase development of the Master Plan. He stated the plan was sympathetic to the adjacent neighbors as well as the edges on the site. He explained the reason the modulars were placed along the southwest corner was due to the anticipated need for additional classroom space until the final phase of the Master Plan was complete. He did not know when the Master Plan would be complete. He said they would place the modulars as far out of public view as possible. He, then addressed the parking issue, and stated they did not anticipate a need for off-site parking. He said they actually exceeded the recommendations by the Zoning Code on-site. In fact, he stated, they were sensitive to their neighbors in regard to parking, and they had requested the congregation exit from Lowry onto Fairhaven in consideration of the traffic circulation. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Chair Bonina asked the applicant if drop-offs were allowed on Breezy Way. Mr. Schoolmeester replied there was an original Master Plan approval that allowed access from Breezy Way, but they had never used it. He said there was a gate that did not allow access, and everyone gained access at Lowry. Chair Bonina asked Staff if the access from Lowry onto Fairhaven created any anticipated issues with the additional intensity of a left-hand turn that might be challenged. Mr. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, replied that Staff had looked at the site, and it should not be a problem. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Pruett asked Staff if there were any Elevations of the temporary buildings. He mentioned the vegetation planted around the building. He was assuming there were no improvements being made to the buildings. Ms. Fox responded this was correct. Mr. Pruett commented when the Commission had taken action on this some time ago, it was subject to review after five years. He said now it is eight years later, and as he recalls there was something in the Code that addressed what was temporary and what was permanent; i.e.; something that defined temporary structures and the length of time they could be in place. He cited a previous church where there was some concern, but could not recall exactly what it was. He asked for some clarification on this. Ms. Roseberry read from the Zoning Ordinance under the Temporary Use Permits. It spoke of modular buildings for classrooms, etc., and did not speciry a time period for Temporary Use Permits. She further stated that under the Conditions of Approval, it said the Reviewing Authority (which, she said was the Planning Commission), may prescribe a time limit within the action for the Temporary Use Permit shall be started, completed or both. She pointed out that the Ordinance said "may prescribe" so there was no section in the Code that stated "you shall prescribe" or "the time frame shall not exceed a certain amount," and she did not see anything that had a certain time frame for a modular building to be removed. Chair Bonina stated it sounded like the Commission could provide some type of time limit as a review on the temporary structure, and she agreed. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Commissioner Pruett mentioned this what was done the last time. There was a five year review, and it being eight years later, there was no review. He believed the issue was how to be sure to review and/or follow through. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Pruett ifrecalled what the intent of the review was. Commissioner Pruett replied that he thought the issue was the progress being made, because it was a temporary structure. Although he was sympathetic to the problems that many churches have in this regard, he did not think this should not be subject for review, i.e.; is it being used for the same purpose, have the plans changed, etc. Ms. Roseberry made a correction to what she had previously read. She pointed out at the end of the section, it stated permits for non-recurring temporary use shall not exceed a one year time period, and can re-apply, but cannot be used for longer than two years. She said, at this point, this was a Conditional Use Permit, so there was more leeway in how the Commission could deal with it. Commissioner Pruett again mentioned the elevation ofthe temporary structures, and what they looked like, and how they would be finished. Chair Bonina, stated he did not think they would change. Ms. Fox commented this was correct, but they would be relocated. The Condition suggested by the Design Review Committee was the addition of landscape treatment to screen them from view, and minimize their impact as much as possible. Mr. Schoolmeester added the topography associated with Fairhaven could not be seen on the Plan for the modular units. He explained the modulars could only be seen as one comes into the parking lot. He also stated there was an Evergreen tree that sits in front, and would shield the modulars. He said the buildings were painted to match the existing structures and tended to blend in with the existing structures. Chair Bonina moved to recommend adoption of Resolution No. PC 56-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2533-05, and approve Design Review Committee No. 4001- 05. This project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Co-chair Enderby seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, and Imboden Pruett None None Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461-03 AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 300-03- ORANGE CITY MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. AND INRE: NEW HEARINGS: (4) AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND ORANGE CITY MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE BLOCK AT ORANGE - ORANGE CITY MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, provided a full reading of the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission for these Items. He mentioned the Modifications to the Conditional Use Permit (C.u.P) No. 2461-05 and the Major Site Plan Review 300-03 from the November 21st meeting were continued to allow questions regarding parking and Affordable Housing to be answered and the Planning Commission could hear the modifications in conjunction with the applicant's request to amend the Development Agreement. Additionally, he stated as part of the Review on these modifications to the Development Agreement, an Addendum to the final Enviromnental Impact Report was prepared that analyzed the impact to the changes in the original approval and documents in comparison to the original Enviromnental Impact Report. He continued in response to the questions regarding parking had to do with the number of spaces available as they did the Phase Redevelopment. He stated that Staff recommended, prior to the issuance of parking permits for the parking structure, the applicant submit to the Director of Community Development, a parking plan on how the loss of the surface parking spaces will be accommodated. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the condominiums, Staff has recommended (and is included as a Condition of approval), the applicant submit and receive approval for a new shared parking plan for the entire Block at Orange, including the condominiums. He said the applicant anticipated incorporating within the shared parking plan existing office parking spaces that were not part of the project area today. He continued in regard to Affordable Housing, the Development Agreement has included a requirement that the developer pay $5,500.00 per dwelling unit for the 403 condominiums. He further stated that prior to the issuance the first building permit for any condominium, $3,500.00 per unit must be paid to the City to use for Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Affordable Housing. The remammg $2,000.00 would either be paid by the third anniversary of the approval of the Development Agreement or be waived if the applicant provides Affordable Housing elsewhere within the project site. Mr. Carnes pointed out the proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement was to reflect the changes to the original approvals that were defined as the proj ect in the original Development Agreement. He ended by stating that Staff recommends approval of the documents, and the Commission's action has to include the finding that the Addendum finds the Environmental Impacts are the same as considered or in the Final Enviromnental Impact Report. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to confirm there would be a net increase of approximately 2,000 spaces. Mr. Carnes replied that if the modifications to the original approval are approved and all the entitlements in the previous documents are approved, and what is considered tonight, it would be 999 additional parking spaces over the 5,200 spaces that exist today. Commissioner Bilodeau then asked if the additional structures on the other side of the building that were previously entitled did not go forward, what the net gain would be for the new structure and condominiums. Mr. Carnes explained there would be approximately 300 additional spaces, and mentioned that the condominium parking would be provided separately. 300 more spaces is what would be available for the commercial offices, and the residential would have 960 additional spaces. Commissioner Bilodeau then mentioned the in-lieu fee for Affordable Housing. He asked Staff if the applicant meant the 15 percent plus the 60 units, which would normally go into the project or did the applicant mean solely 15 percent. Mr. Carnes replied that it meant 15 percent of the total of the new project with the total number of units within that project. Commissioner Bilodeau responded this did not seem to be in the City's favor because a new project should already have 15 percent. He thought it should be 15 percent plus the 60 units. He explained that 60 was 15 percent of 403 condominiums. He mentioned he would like to revisit this issue. He also wanted to verify the point of sale clause in the Development Agreement in terms ofthe sales tax for the construction materials. Mr. Carnes concurred. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Commissioner Imboden commented there was a shared parking agreement mentioned in the Staff Report that would have to be reviewed and approved. He wanted to know if that would be handled by the Commission or Staff. Mr. Carnes stated that it would be a c.u.P. to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Imboden started to ask about the parking situation. He wanted to know the present number of parking spaces as well as the number of spaces after the project. Chair Bonina wanted to defer this answer after the presentation by the applicant. He wanted to dispense with the typical protocol and asked the applicant to make the presentation in a dialogue fashion so that the Commission could ask questions as they came up. He also mentioned that Staff had provided financial information, but the Commission would not engage in those types of discussions. He explained the Commission's purpose was to make land use decisions, and to the extent they needed to talk about or make statements relative to the financials, that would be okay. He believed this was something that City Council would do. However, he stated if there were any recommendations relative to the project, then they could be voiced and forwarded on to City Council. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Link. applicant. She stated there were two issues to be discussed tonight; security and parking. She pointed out that two years ago, Staff recommended significant coordination efforts be made with the Orange Police Department. She said that many of the items were listed in the Conditional Use Permit while working with the Police Department. Ms. Karie Naienmik. General Manager. She wanted to address the points that were a part of the agreement with the City. She mentioned that they had been asked to increase the pay of the security officers to maintain a competitive pay rate with other shopping centers in the area. She explained that in July 2002, there was an increase of $1.00 an hour more with the entry level as well as the lieutenants. The company, Valor was their contract service. She stated they were a third-party professional service that kept up with the latest laws, but more importantly, they trained their officers accordingly. She continued there was on-going training, role playing, drills, etc. that include the Orange Police Department so there is a distinction between a security role versus a police officer. She said there were curfew restrictions and sweeps for the County and City of Orange by 10:00 pm for anyone under the age of 18. She pointed out that every evening there was a recorded message that is sent over the loudspeaker at 9:45 pm, and thereafter every five minutes through 10:00 pm. She added on their "peak" nights, (Thursday through Saturday during the summer, and Friday and Saturday nights during the school year as Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 well as the holidays) there is an enforced sweep. She said that there could be non- scheduled enforced sweeps, if necessary. She wanted it noted that The Block had a zero tolerance for all truancy. She noted some of the targeted security preventions are the camera-surveillance systems. In 2002, an evaluation was done, and by 2003, some of the camera positions were changed based on the findings of that report. The cameras are the pan-tilt zoom, and with the new construction, these will be upgraded. She mentioned when the structure is built, additional security cameras will be added, and bring it up to state-of-the art along with the rest of the systems. She added that the trees and shrubs are kept cut back while maintaining a balance of foliage and kept well lit. She stated their stats showed a decrease in occurrences of juvenile disturbances that included stolen car incidents. She said there had only been two incidents of car thefts which was quite low in a shopping center enviromnent. She mentioned this was due in part to the relationship with the Orange Police Department. She pointed out that there have also been gang sweeps in addition to sweeping the bars and nightclubs. She mentioned there would be additional lighting in the area of where the parking structure would be built. She stated that their lighting enviromnent was well maintained, and performed lighting studies and surveys, and their security patrols marked the lights that require replacement. She commented on the routine meetings between the Orange Police Department and the Block security to create a safe enviromnent for the shoppers. She said they worked closely with the police department to ensure they were not over-taxing the police resources. She then commented on the net sales tax revenue, and how their sales had gone up. She believed this was due in part to the great job the leasing office had done to bring revenue producing tenants to the property. She also stated they had been asked to look at Part One crime stats from 2001. She stated there was increase in Part One of 15 percent, and a decrease of 11 percent of overall stats. She added that for 2002 to 2003, there was another increase of 6.9 percent in Part One, and an increase of 22 percent of overall stats. She continued the difference for 2003 to 2004 was a reduction of 4.8 percent in Part One crimes, and a total reduction of 35 percent in overall crimes. Currently, they are running at a 28 percent reduction in overall crimes to date. Ms. Link stated that if the project were built today, and if they were to plan the parking per City Code as a stand-alone shopping center with the same amount of square footage, they would be required to have parking spaces for 4,325 cars. She said that based on their Conditional Use Permit, (approved in 2000) and the fact that this is a mixed-use project, there is additional parking due to the EOP office located in the Office Towers. She explained that with this parking, there were currently 5,324 spaces, making 999 more spaces per the C.U.P. that is in existence today in what would have been required if they opened their doors today per Code. Additionally, she stated, the existing agreement in place, is an easement for 460 cars located west of the theatre parking lot and adj acent to the 500-505 office buildings. She explained these parking spaces were available to the Block after 6:00 pm plus weekends and holidays. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Chair Bonina asked if the easement for 460 spaces was through an agreement or an easement and if this was part of the 5,324 spaces. Ms. Link replied that this was an agreement with Equity Office that was in place when the Addendum was done two years ago and was not a part of the 5,324, but was in addition to these spaces. She stated they had met what was originally required by Code, and because they share parking with the Office Tower, they have an additional 999 spaces, plus the 460 spaces. Chair Bonina then asked how much of the 5,324 spaces was a part of the shared parking. Ms. Link replied that 1,305 spaces were part of the shared parking. Ms. Link presented the display charts, and showed the different colors that correlated to the parking. She said the green in the upper shaded area was what existed today while the yellow were the spaces in excess of Code, and the red was what was required of Code, and these two together were the C.U.P. She explained that EOP owns 1,305 spaces. She stated their agreement, in principal is executed with having definitive documents that will be completed before the year end. She pointed out that graphically they show there is plenty of parking per Code, and there will be close to 1,900 spaces above what is required. She said that once the construction of the deck has started, they will lose about 400 spaces. She explained it was their intention to run a shuttle for the 700 cars that are in the back. She stated the shuttle would go back to the 700 car space area, circulate the area, provide a drop-off to the theatre entry, go to the Dave and Buster's entry, go outside of the property, and pick anyone up who was parked in the deck area, come around, and drop off at all entry points of the proj ect. She further stated the shuttle would nm during the construction of the deck and Toll Brothers. She mentioned that the valet parking would be removed by December 31, 2005, and would not bring the valet back until they go through the process with the Minor Site Plan Review, and C.U.P. Commissioner Imboden referred to the parking analysis in the Staff Report, and asked if there was a parking shortage presently, if so how many, and based on the proposal tonight, what would this number be. Ms. Link responded the parking analysis Commissioner Imboden referred to did not include the off-site parking that they had negotiated with EOP, (the green area on the chart.) If they do not take the green area into consideration, they are short approximately 400-450 car spaces. She said based on the agreement, in principal, the 460 cars go up to 900 spaces, and would not be short today or if the proj ect gets 100 percent built out. The 800 cars they predict being short is based on a complete full build out; the additional 120,000 square feet of retail, the hotels, and condominiums. She stated even with all this Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 in place, there would be excess parking due to the shared parking they are negotiating with EOP. She stated the 460 car easement is in place today, and they would educate the public that safe parking is available in that area. Commissioner Imboden mentioned when he visited the site during the daytime, he noticed to the west part of the property, there was a large portion of the parking lot that was blocked off. He asked ifthis was part ofthe valet or part of the shared parking. Ms. Link replied this was blocked off by Equity Office Building for their tenants. She also stated this came down at 6:00 pm and with the new agreement, many of the gates came up at 5 :00, which will work better for the early movies at the theatre. Commissioner Bilodeau stated when he visited the site, he noticed the valet parking lots were not full while patrons drove around the parking lots looking for a space. He believed part of the parking deficit is the applicant's creation due to the valet plan. He would like to see the valet parking ceased because there is no C.U.P to allow it, and the City has requested this be ceased. Ms. Link stated that there are various restaurants that have valet rights within their leases. In order to correct this, they needed to get through the holidays where valet parking was part of the package. She said in the past, the parking spaces were parked one car per space, which is not traditional for an urban setting. She mentioned that Ms. Nejmenik had been working with the valet company to shrink the parking area down to 500 cars. She said they would still be able to accommodate 1,000 cars by stacking. She also pointed out that these spaces were not a part of the spaces leased by the Redevelopment Authority. Ms. Najemnik stated the valet issue was if they did not reserve enough spaces in the early part of the day, then there will not be enough spaces in the evening when this is their peak hours. She commented that on "Black Friday", there was a 38 percent increase for the valet parking. She stated one of the things they wanted to do for the consolidation was to move the valet over so that it only impacted the docks and not the main entryways. Ms. Link added that they would terminate the valet service on December 31, 2005. Commissioner Bilodeau asked the applicant about the spaces being used for valet, and if they overlapped with the spaces covered by the redevelopment agreement. Ms. Link replied that Ms. Najemnik was working to correct this, but the modification to the redevelopment agreement that the public will see has been taken into account. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to go through the parking plan relative to the parking Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 structures with signage, etc. Ms. Link explained when the deck goes up, a speed ramp will be added, which she believes will be key to function effectively. She pointed out the deck would be used all day and evening, and the speed ramp would allow one to go from the on-grade parking up to the fourth level, and there would be two lanes both directions. She also said there would be computerized read-outs at each level showing how many parking spaces were available at each floor. She said the ramp, and the computerized system would make the deck user-friendly, and the lighting would make it safe. She explained that the signage is being worked out with EOP, and some of the signs might be put out on a daily basis to help with the traffic. Also, there would be signs to show the customers can be told there would be no additional parking in certain areas as well as signs to show that customers could park at the 500 to 505 buildings. She commented that they had received some bids for the design build opportunity for the deck. Chair Bonina asked about the timing of the housing. Ms. Link turned the question over to one of the staff members, and he thought the first set of condos would be finished before Fall of 2008. Asst. City Attorney, Ted Reynolds asked the speaker to identiry himself. Mr. Sal Provenza. Land Acquisition Manager. Toll Brothers. He stated he was looking to purchase the property and the parking lot. Ms. Link then spoke of their intent to start on a portion of the retail expansion. She mentioned there was some interest from some additional restaurateurs and other retailers to come into the project. She stated the project has had a positive change and that the leasing office is located on-site is a huge asset. She pointed out that every space lost due to the improvements made by OCT A and Cal Trans on the interchange will be included in the deck so the shortage they have experienced because of this proj ect will be remediated as soon as the deck is open. She mentioned there would be a signage package to be presented with the parking deck design early next year. Commissioner Imboden asked ifthe guest parking in the condo area was gated. Ms. Link replied that they were open. Commissioner Imboden then asked if there was anything that would restrict mall user from using the guest parking. Mr. Provenza replied that the idea is that this would be guest parking for the residences only. He explained that on the Site Plan, there was a small motor court that goes through Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 the larger portion of the site, and although there are no gates, there are monuments that make you feel if you're a retail patron, you shouldn't be there. He said they were relying on the guilt factor. He said that it was designed where a call box and a gate could be used in the future along with a roundabout inside the property that could be used as a turn- around for those who could not get in. Commissioner Pruett commented that he assumed there would not be an easy access to the retail center from these spaces. Mr. Provenza stated this was correct. Ms. Link added that the parking for retail would be underneath would be marked for retail with easy access to the retail center. Commissioner Imboden stated his concern of approximately 4,800 pedestrians walking between the condos as well as 1,000 cars driving through the area and condo owners coming home in such a small area. He wanted to know if the applicant could explain how this might be mitigated. Ms. Link replied that there was not enough traffic to require a signal in this area, but there would be a stop sign. She said they were planning a significant sidewalk along with a speed table rather than just crosswalks. She explained the traffic consultants had advised them that speed tables actually slow a car better than a bump. They acknowledge there was much more traffic there, and were working on that section with speed tables and were trying to use other materials as cahning measures to slow down this traffic. Commissioner Imboden stated his concern was not only for the pedestrian, but for the people who would be living there, and he was concerned about mitigations due to the heavy traffic flow. Ms. Link stated that this would most likely be Thursday, Friday and Saturday. She said this was a definite urban setting, and would have all the same issues that a busy urban setting will have as far as pedestrians and conflicts with cars. She said from a specific detail, they have not designed this yet, but would be doing so with Toll Brother when they move forward. Commissioner Imboden asked the applicant if they considered keeping the residential on one side rather than stretching it over the access point. Ms. Link answered that the benefit of having the condo units on both sides flanking the street is a positive impact on the visual. She explained the people who will live there will get to see other residential as opposed to the parking deck. She added the people who Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 work in the 500 and 505 buildings have the vision of the exterior of the condominiums. She mentioned that this was one of the solutions working with the E.O.P. since they had concerns about the view corridor, and by moving the housing; they have enhanced the view corridor. Commissioner Bilodeau asked how many spaces the applicant would be losing after the OCT A reconfiguration. Ms. Link replied they would lose plus or minus 250 spaces. Commissioner Bilodeau inquired if the footprint of the parking structure was at 300. Ms. Link replied that there were 228. Commissioner Bilodeau then asked how many would be lost for the housing project. Ms. Link answered about 990 spaces. Commissioner Bilodeau wanted to know how much parking would be lost on the east side of the building where the two expansions would be. Ms. Link stated that there was 120,000 square feet, which was approximately three acres, and there would be a loss of about 120 to 135 per acre. She added that every space they're losing would be replaced on the deck. Commissioner Bilodeau commented that the two expansions on the east side would be replaced in the structures adjacent to the two hotels. Ms. Link replied that there would be one space for every hotel room plus the employee parking, as well as the parking required for the additional retail. She said the deck would be built first which is what Toll is doing before they allow them to take those spaces out of service. She commented in the case of OCTA, it was her wish that the deck was built first, and then the construction, but this did not happen. But, in all other cases here, the decks will come first, and the replacement parking will be in place before any other parking is taken out of service. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if for the housing project there would be 887 spaces that will be parked underneath. Ms. Link replied this was correct, and there would also be another 300 plus cars for the retail businesses so there will be over I, I 00 spaces. Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Commissioner Bilodeau asked what was the total number of spaces for the structure and the spaces under the housing. He mentioned in the Staff Report it states 887 spaces. Ms. Link stated for the purpose of residential, this was correct. She pointed out in the Staff Report, it also addressed the fact that there are additional spaces being constructed for retail. Commissioner Bilodeau commented that this was 317 spaces. He said this would add up to 2,928. When he adds up the loss of spaces, he comes up with over 1,900 surface spaces will be lost due to the expansions. Ms. Link mentioned Commissioner Bilodeau had added up the spaces under the deck. She stated she would not lose all of these spaces; they would lose about 40 spaces. Commissioner Bilodeau explained when you build a structure with 1,700 spaces on a 300 space surface parking area, the net gain will be 1,400. Ms. Link replied no, their net gain would be 1,728. She said that she had already taken into account all the losses. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the parking structure had 1,722 net spaces or was this the total spaces. Ms. Link answered these were the spaces between the colunms surrounding the deck. Commissioner Bilodeau stated that this was the total, but the net increase is only actually 1,422 because there's 300 already on the ground. Ms. Link replied yes, but the only spaces they will lose are 900 spaces under Toll and will gain 300 of those back once Toll builds which doesn't matter because they're replacing 100 percent of the 900 plus cars in the deck as well as all the spaces that OCT A took because she knows they are needed. Commissioner Bilodeau commented if the two hotels and their accompanying parking structures were not built, and they go forward with the expansion on the east side, they build the condominiums, and build the parking structure adjacent, it seems to have a net gain of about 1,000 spaces. But, he said when you look at the parking demand for the condominiums per the Code, which is about 887, and if they look at the parking demand for the two expansions, which is five per 1,000, it appears as though they're going negative. Ms. Link responded that the bulk of the parking for the retail expansion will be on a new deck so these spaces will not be taken out of service unless they'll be replaced one car per Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 one car plus the additional demand would be replaced on the deck. Commissioner Bilodeau asked where the deck would be located. Ms. Link replied it would be next to one ofthe hotels. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if it was a condition if the applicant built the structure prior to the expansions. Ms. Link answered that the bulk of the retail expansion would require a deck. She explained the loss of 300 spaces (due to OCTA) would be replaced. She continued there were 900 spaces underneath which means there would be about 1,200 new car spaces in the deck to maintain where they're at today. She added the size of the deck (of about 1,728) takes into account this loss. Once the deck is built, they will be even to where they are today. Then, there will be the Toll Bros. construction which will bring an additional 317 car spaces. She said this would be 317 more cars on the mall property than are there today available for retail shopping. She stated there would be 900 car easements adjacent to the property, which would make it a 1,200 car net. She further stated that when the documents are signed with EOP, they would be at a 900 car net, which will happen this year. She believed they can demonstrate the 300 car space they're building would allow them to do a small piece of the retail expansion prior to building another big deck, but this was subject to further review by Staff and the Planning Commission. She was certain once the deck was built, they would have every parking space they had before OCTA started as well as when Toll finishes building their center there will be 300 more. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Angus if what they are approving today did not provide for an approval for the commercial of 1,200 cars or any portion ofthis. Ms. Angus replied that this was correct, and what was before the Commission was the parking structure at the 1,700 plus spaces and a change in the Conditional Use Permit from apartments to condominiums along with shared parking. She believed when they were done with the parking structure, the parking under the surface level, and the captured shared parking, there may be some excess that could support some of the commercial that has not been before the Commission that will need to come back and need to demonstrate they have the parking spaces prior to permits for the commercial expansion towards the front of the center. Chair Bonina stated they would be able to address the parking issue if there is one, and Ms. Angus stated yes. Commissioner Bilodeau assumed this part of the expanSIOn had been previously approved. Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Ms. Link stated the expansion is approved, but not the specific for this piece of it; meaning in the CEQA analysis, then the Addendum approved it, and the Site Plan included all the uses. Chair Bonina asked about the Affordable Housing on the project. Ms. Link stated it was their intention to do this project with the in-lieu fee, and if Mills does another project within the Orange Project to do Affordable Housing within that unit. Chair Bonina asked the applicant to define the Orange Project. Ms. Link replied the Mills project was on the Site Plan shaded in the gray/green color area. It was within this boundary that she was speaking. She said if they come back and seek entitlements for additional housing, it will include Affordable Housing at the 15 percent rate. Chair Bonina mentioned the statement made earlier by Commissioner Bilodeau regarding Affordable Housing. Ms. Link answered the intent was to apply the 15 percent to the new project and the in lieu fee, which has almost doubled, will be used to pay for Affordable somewhere within the project. She suspects the money will be spent, and did not think they would intend to get any money back if they built additional Affordable Housing. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Angus what the requirement was for a redevelopment area for constructing housing in the Affordable percentage area. Ms. Angus replied the Redevelopment Agency has an obligation for any housing that's displaced to replace it, and new housing has a requirement for an inclusion, not necessarily on the project site or the agency boundaries. But, if it's within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency, it's 15 percent, and there's a breakdown of the 40 percent of the 15% Affordable to the very low segment of the whole strata of Affordable Housing. If the agency chooses not to replace the housing within the agency boundary, then it's a two for one. She explained 15 percent equated to 60 units within the project area. She mentioned that up until recently, the agency has gone through their Five-Year Implementation Plan, and were ahead of the curve for Affordable Housing in different projects, most in association with Orange Housing Development Corporation. She continued they did not require with new proj ects to be incorporated on-site. She mentioned some projects that came before the Commission recently had a negotiated in lieu fee and this was the parameter the City operated under the first time that Mills came before the Commission about a year ago. Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Commissioner Bilodeau mentioned after going through the parking numbers, it appeared there would be a net increase of parking spaces. He stated he had come up with about 600 extra spaces. Mr. Provenza clarified that the 900 spaces were not a part of the numbers provided, and Commissioner Bilodeau understood this. Commissioner Bilodeau stated the way the Affordable Housing was written that $2,000 dollars of the in lieu fee would be refunded if on another project that's done on the parcel if 15 percent is provided on that building. That building should be provide 15 percent already, and was not sure where the net gain is or the intent behind this. It seemed it should be 15 percent plus 60 so they're breaking even on the units. He asked for Staff to provide some background. Ms. Angus explained Redevelopment Law talks about the 15 percent obligation; that's an obligation that incurs to the Redevelopment Agency, and they need to manage how this housing is produced. They do not have an inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but there is some policy language that talks about encouraging and looking at ways the agency or the City can assist developers to include Affordable Housing within their project. The benefit in terms of the language and the development agreement is it locks it in place for the future development to provide 15 percent, and the agency is not taking a greater obligation in the future. While such a project is not on the table, in discussions with Mills, there is some interest in future housing on-site and what they've tried to accomplish was to negotiate this up front and lock it into place. She continued this did not make up or capture Affordable Housing for the current Toll Brothers project before them, but the agency is continually looking and working out housing deals throughout the City. She believed the applicant was comfortable with collecting the fees on this one and getting the agreement on rights to a future proj ect on-site. Chair Bonina asked if it was fair to say that whatever future project is out there, it's not inclusionary, but would be a project with Affordable Housing. Ms. Angus replied this was not correct, but whatever project comes in the future, as opposed to the City having to adopt an Inclusionary Ordinance, they've already locked this in through the Development Agreement, and it would include affordability of 15 percent of all the units as affordable. She said that they were still looking at a high quality project, and were not looking for a project that was 100 percent affordable, but instead as they can calculate this in, could come up with a well-designed high quality project that includes 15 percent affordable, and the breakdown as to how much of this 15 percent is very low, then low to moderate, there would still be 85 percent of it at market value. Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Chair Bonina commented he was a little confused because he thought the argument was not having 15 percent of the 400 units was they did not want to go with inclusionary requirements or housing whereas now they're saying the 15 percent they will be getting in the future will be inclusionary. Ms. Angus stated to help him better understand the terminology that she is using, and the context within which she is using it, the City does not have an Inclusionary Ordinance so by right, they cannot require 15 percent of their proj ect as inclusionary, but can negotiate that. She explained what had previously been negotiated as the applicant talked about the site and how they tried to get another stabilizing influence with the residential, was a partnership between the City and the Mills Corporation to create more synergy. She stated the decision was what was before the Commission in terms of the residential, future expansion of retail, and future hotels. She said when they came up with this negotiation, and what had been approved by City Council previously, was not to require Affordable Housing on-site at this location, but instead for the fee to be paid, which at that time was $2,850.00. She commented that the economics, as such, to build the 400 and some condominium units, they will have to build a 1,700 car structure as well as the parking associated with the condominiums, it is difficult for them to absorb the cost difference for this individual project. She continued as they go forward, there have been discussions the applicant may be interested in housing elsewhere on the project site, they wanted to lock in their intention and their agreement is to provide with the next project, 15 percent affordable. Chair Bonina asked if with the 400 market rate units, wouldn't it generate a requirement, at some point in this project area, for 60 affordable units somewhere within this redevelopment defined area known as the Block. Ms. Angus replied that not within this defined area. She stated that Redevelopment Law talks about providing Affordable Housing. She explained that the project area was much larger than The Block and the Redevelopment Agency actually combined all three redevelopment project areas. She stated most of the commercial and industrial areas did not include a lot of land previously designated for residential, but as they move ahead with their General Plan, and look at mixed-use areas, they'll capture areas that are mixed use or are a residential nature so when she speaks of redevelopment project area, she's not speaking of The Block or The City area, but a much larger portion of the City. She commented that within the larger redevelopment area, there is an obligation with this project to provide 60 units of affordable and a breakdown of those or if it's not provided within a project area and if instead the agency looks at an area outside of the area that's residentially designated, as they have done in the past with proj ects, they can provide them there. Page 18 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Ms. Link stated when they started the project; it was because the City called upon them. She thought this was the first step to making The Block an even better place, and mentioned that the theatres were ranked Number Two in the country. She hoped the project would get better and better. Chair Bonina asked the applicant if there was anything she wanted to state on the Development Agreement that the Commission had not previously heard. Ms. Link stated that Mrs. Najenmik has previously commented on the Security issues, which was a big part of that agreement. Ms. Leslie Dixon. 20 Citv Blvd West. Orange. CA.. Manager of Bath and Body Works. She spoke in favor of the project. She stated she had been at this location for the past year and a half. She pointed out she had seen significant improvement and traffic grow within the Block. She stated the store's sales and transactions had grown significantly over the past year due to the development of the stores within the center. She believes this proj ect is another way for the sales of her store as well as other stores will dramatically increase over the next few years. She spoke of the parking structure, and how it will help the employees as well as draw more traffic to the center. She mentioned the possibility of having employee parking at the 500 Building area and how this would benefit them since currently the employees use many spaces near the mall because there is no where else to park. She thought the condominiums would bring more people to the mall, as those residents would become a targeted audience. She stated that overall; the project was very exciting, and a great way to help sales in the center and the city. Mr. Mitch Reichel. 180 Newport Center Drive. Equitv Office Development Consultant. He stated that Equity Office was here tonight to support the Mills Expansion Project at The Block. He explained this was a result of Equity Office and Mills working out an agreement, in principal, that covered several issues discussed tonight, but mainly was about parking. He added they were very pleased with the progress made on the residential component of the project, converting it from apartments to condominiums and the overall design was much more appealing not just to Equity Office but to their customers, tenants, and the two office buildings across the street. He said he looked forward to coming before the Planning Commission early next year with Amendments to some of the Entitlements that were previously approved for the office developments in the area that adjoin The Block. Mr. Cesar Covarrubias. address on file. Kennedy Commission. He stated his organization was an advocate for Affordable Housing. He thanked the Commission and Staff for endeavoring to figure out a calculation that would make in lieu fees in Affordable Housing more viable in this city. He thought good steps were being taken to address the issue and recognize a new formula needed to be calculated. He said whether Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 this is the correct formula or not, he thought this could be worked on. One of his concerns were when this development came to the Commission, and the Council as an apartment development, there was an in lieu fee consideration being proposed which was probably the same one proposed as the other developments in the uptown Orange area; the old Cinedome site, and the Archstone Development. He said when those projects came back, a different calculation was done, but there was also a willingness of the developer to include some of the harder to obtain Affordable Housing components such as, the moderate level as units that would be developed within the development. He thought the formula was to use the moderate units on-site as part of the development, and keep the in lieu fees to mitigate some of the needs for some of the lower income levels that they would not address on those projects. He thought in the case before the Commission, it appeared as though none of the units would be considered, but they would use the formula for $4,000.00 if in the future they decide to put something in for affordable, and $6,000 if they don't put a component in later on. His said this figure did not go far to develop units either on-site or elsewhere in the final calculations. He urged the City to look at different examples such as Irvine. He said they use a true in lieu fee calculation where there is a systematic approach. He stated they had just reviewed it and had gone from $6,000 to $12,000 per unit. He said the predominant problem in Orange County in not creating Affordable Housing is not having the sites or land, and if they don't encourage developers to partner to reach the numbers, they will have a harder time creating those opportunities because there is no land. As Ms. Angus stated, the City is taking some steps in meeting some of the redevelopment numbers and they are meeting those needs, but not by producing new units, but by acquisition rehab. He said that 1,200 new units in the uptown area, and 500 new units at The Block were approved with the intent to lessen the burden on the community in the housing market for a rental, now this has been taken away by having home ownership, and the other issue is not being addressed. Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bilodeau stated in looking at the Development Agreement with the $2,000 per unit that could be rescinded, it referred to the Firestone parcel. He asked where this was located. Ms. Link replied this used to be J.C. Penney at the Firestone site in the far southeast corner where currently there is a gas station planned. Commissioner Bilodeau thought the project was well thought out. He commented that Toll Brothers is a premier builder. He thanked the Commission for indulging him in continuing this item so that additional information was provided. He felt that going through the parking numbers repeatedly, he believed there would a small net gain. He looked forward to the valet parking be resolved soon. He recalled there were other Page 20 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 uptown Orange projects where the apartments were converted to condominiums. He said they required the applicant include 10 percent B.R.E. for Affordable Housing plus an in lieu fee component. He just wanted to consider equity and fairness to other applicants that have come before the Commission. He added this was in a redevelopment zone and were required to provide 60 units. He calculated the $5,500 times 403 units equated to $2.2 million, and he did not believe 60 units could be built for $2.2 million. He was concerned the Orange taxpayers would be left on the hook for the rest of the funding, and the obligation that the City would have to fulfill. Chair Bonina stated the concept of putting new housing with commercial use is something that will be seen more frequently. He stated the General Plan is going in that direction. He thought this was a good match. He believes the parking and traffic has been reviewed in great detail, and was not simple to understand. He thought it provided a net gain, albeit not as much as they would like. He commented the Affordable Housing issue is something that concerns him, and is not the ideal structure. He said if they are serious about creating Affordable Housing, then they should allow for the Affordable Housing at the same time as the development moves forward. He added that City Council is the one that provides these guidelines, and believes it's important that the information in the proposal moving forward, as he understands it, directed by City Council. He pointed out the Commission would continue to voice their opinions on the Affordable Housing structure in the City, but ultimately it is the City Council that provides guidance in this regard. He stated again he was not totally comfortable with it, but would move forward as it is outlined in the Development Agreement as well as the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Pruett believed this is a good project, and stated this in the last meeting. He was concerned when a percentage is laid out to meet a quota in terms of housing. He's not sure the housing needs are satisfied when it goes in this direction. He stated Staff indicated the housing goals are being achieved and actually exceeding them. He added he did not see a problem with the policy that City Council put forward. He believes this policy is working well, and gives some flexibility to the Housing Department when they have the dollars to make sound fiscal decisions in providing new housing. He said in terms of other developments that converted to condominiums, the City was able to create some affordable units within those facilities. He said they were under construction and then were told they wanted to change the plans. He stated this put the developer in a different bargaining position in what you're able to extract from an individual who is coming forward with a proposal. He believed the City was able to work with that situation and the different situations can't be used as a model as what should be done in terms of Affordable. He thinks this would be a mistake. He thinks the key is the City's policy can always be improved in providing Affordable Housing. He ended by stating that the City and Staff should be commended for the work that they do, and they this is overlooked sometimes. Page 21 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Chair Bonina moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 51-05 recommending to the City Council approval of the modification to Conditional Use Permit 2461-03 and Adopt Resolution No. 52-05 recommending to the City Council approval of the modification to Major Site Plan Review No. 300-03 understanding that the previously certified Final Enviromnental Impact Report No. 1721-03 reviewed the enviromnental impacts of approved project. An Addendum to Final Enviromnental Impact Report No. 1721-03 has been prepared to evaluate the enviromnental impacts of the modified project. He again stated this was a recommendation of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett Imboden None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 52-05 recommending to the City Council approval of the modification to Major Site Plan Review No. 300-03 previously certified Final Enviromnental Impact Report No. 1721-03 reviewed the enviromnental impacts of approved project. An Addendum to Final Enviromnental Impact Report No. 1721-03 has been prepared to evaluate the enviromnental impacts of the modified project. He again stated this was a recommendation to approve the modifications to the Major Site Plan. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett Commissioner Imboden None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 58-05 recommending approval to the City Council of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement by and between The City of Orange and Orange City Mills Limited Partnership understanding the Addendum to Final Enviromnental Impact Report No. 1721-03 reviewed the enviromnenta1 impacts of the approved project. An Addendum to the FElR has been prepared to evaluate the enviromnental impacts of the proposed modifications to the project. Page 22 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. Commissioner Bilodeau commented that he would support the Development Agreement as he had previously stated his concerns regarding Affordable Housing. He agreed this was ultimately a City Council decision on what direction that want to take. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett and Imboden None None None MOTION CARRIED (5) FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- "EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES" Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the Commission. Chair Bonina asked the definition of "reach an agreement". Mr. Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, replied that there is a set ofCC&Rs that govern between the two parties. He explained when they completed the Development Agreement about a year ago, it was determined this set ofCC&Rs needed to be amended which meant recordation of a document. He further stated they need certification from The Mills stating they were satisfied, and could go forward with their expansion plans. He said on October 28th, they had an agreement, in principal, but the City has not seen this document yet. He said it was a thick document with many things to work out yet, and they asked the City to grant them an additional three months to get the document completed. Chair Bonina opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mitch Reichel. Development Consultant. Equitv Office Properties. He concurred with the Staff Report. He added that they were working to complete the CC&Rs along with other documents and believe they will accomplish before the end of January. Ms. Link. address on file. She thanked the City for the original Development Agreement that was negotiated with EOP. Page 23 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2005 Chair Bonina closed the Public Hearing. Chair Bonina stated the enviromnental impacts of the approved office buildings were analyzed by Final Enviromnental Impact Report (FElR) 1612-01 and an Addendum to the FElR was prepared and approved for the DA. Because the amendment does not involve any change in land uses or entitlements, no further enviromnental analysis is required. Thus, he moved to Adopt Resolution No. 57-05 recommending approval to the City Council ofthe First Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between The City of Orange and EOP. Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Enderby, Bonina, Pruett, and Imboden None None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting on Monday, January 16, 2006. Commissioner Bilodeau seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 24