Loading...
2004 - August 16 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 16, 2004 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Dorner, Pruett and Smith STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2409-02, VARIANCE NO. 2124-03 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 223-03 - ARCO AM/PM MINI MART A proposal to redevelop an existing gas station with a mini-market with new facilities. The subject site is located on the north side of Katella Avenue approximately 1,000 feet west of Tustin Street (1935 E. Katella Avenue). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that the applicant had requested that this item be continued to an unspecified date. She also noted that the item had been left on the agenda because, although the required mailings were not sent out to the neighbors within 300 feet, it had been documented in the newspaper. Therefore, in the event that any of the neighbors attended this meeting, they would note that it was going to be continued. When the new date is determined, a notice will be published in the newspaper and the appropriate notices will be sent out to the neighbors. Chairman Pruett asked if anyone was in the audience for this item, and noted that there was no one in attendance. A motion was made by Commissioner Brandman to continue the meeting to an unspecified date, and it was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Dorner, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED Planning Commission August 16, 2004 INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: None (2) THERE WERE NO MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None INRE: NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2511-04 - CREEKSIDE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL A proposal to use existing Sunday school classrooms (First Christian School of Orange) for a private school. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVISIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced Chris Carnes, the Senior Planner on staff who gave the staff report. He noted that the previous c.u.P. specified a limit of75 students. The applicant wants to increase that allowance to 150 students from kindergarten to eighth grade. The proposal is to use the existing ten classrooms. Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has developed a drop-off and pick-up system using the existing parking lot. The parents will be notified, and this communication includes a notification that they are not to use Walnut Avenue as a drop-off or pick-up location. The proposal does not include any changes to the existing site plan. The previously operating school, which was a Montessori school and a preschool, has ceased operating on the site. Staff has recommended approval of the proposal subject to adoption of conditions that include assurances that no parking overflow into surrounding properties, and no operation of the church activities in conjunction with the school activities. He noted that the Planning Commission decision is final, unless appealed to the City Council, and there were two communications received from property owners who lived adjacent to the subject site. Chairman Pruett invited the architect for the applicant, Terry Jacobson (3111 Second Avenue, #3, Corona del Mar, California 92625) to come forward to speak. He described the application as an existing church campus consisting of a sanctuary, a chapel, a number of classroom buildings, and offices. He explained that the church has, over the years, had school programs and this is merely an application to continue school use through a new C.D.P. on this property. The parking onsite is more than adequate for both the office and school use. During school operating hours there would be 108 parking spaces available, which he stated is many more than are required for those uses. Both the school and the church have agreed to the Conditions of Approval within the Staff Report. 2 Planning Commission APPRO'lVf" August 16, 2004 Mr. Jacobsen invited David Poole, 6010 E. Silver Spur Trail, Anaheim, CA, a member of the Elder Board at Creekside Christian fellowship in Irvine, and also a member of the proposed school board, to help answer the Commissioners' questions. Also answering questions was Ms. Ann Samuelson, 3026 N. Pinewood Street, Orange, CA. She is the superintendent of the proposed school. The Commissioners asked the following questions, which were answered by both staff and various representatives of the applicant: . Is there a relationship between the Creekside Christian School and the First Christian School of Orange? What is the curriculum? Who will teach? It is a curriculum that has Christian aspects included within it. We do not serve together in our church worships; the relationship is one where they have space available to rent and it is considered a good outreach to the community to have a Christian school available to them. . There is not much information about the actual curriculum. Are you providing a daycare along with your academic program? There will be daycare provided between 6:45 a.m. and 6: 15 p.m. There might be up to 35-40 students early in the morning, it is difficult to tell, as the program has not been established yet. These students would be contained inside the school. In the afternoon there might be approximately 50 students involved in the after-school program. . How many faculty and staff members are there? 10 teachers, an administrative assistant, two administrators and five teacher-assistants (they will be part of who supervises the children at lunchtime and on the playground), and two daycare workers. That's a total oftwenty, correct? Correct. . Are there after-school sports, music, or art classes? At this point, no art, there will be an after-school program for sports; we are currently using an off-site campus for basketball practice, and football has been using the playground area. Will they be on site in Orange? Not sure whether they will be able to be on- or off-site. Music will be part of the curriculum during the daytime - it will be more vocal (no instruments), music appreciation, etc. . There really is nothing mentioned for what will happen during the day. What is the plan for recess and lunchtime, etc.? There will be a recess time in mid-morning, and lunchtime in the middle of the day. We are anticipating that our kindergarten and first grade will use the courtyard between two of the buildings. Then there is a section over to the eastside of the building that will be set-aside for the junior high students. The area behind the church would be for the students in grades second through sixth, and the lunch hours would be staggered as would the recess times. Times have not been solidified. The actual time is not as important as the total number of students on the playground at particular times. What is your best estimate? I didn't come prepared with those numbers, but probably no more than 50 at one time. . Are the kindergartners in an all-day program as well? At the beginning of the year they will be in a half-day program. It may be extended to a full day, as they are ready, usually around the second semester. 3 ft. Ii} 10 D 41'. 'I T "~ F~,S Jl 1:\. 'Lli'1/ [, Planning Commission August 16, 2004 . What types of activities do you have for the evenings or weekends? At this point there are no activities planned for the weekend; we'd like to have a get-acquainted picnic that would be a 5-7pm type of thing. Other than a Christmas or Open House it would be very occasionally at night. . Walnut Street is a very busy street, and there is a school (Cambridge Elementary) next to you. A lot of children walk to school down Walnut Street. Have you given thought to any type of system to ensure that those children crossing your egress and ingress driveways would be safe and protected from your traffic? Good point. Adults will be there to monitor the children as they arrive and leave so that traffic moves very quickly and smoothly. Your point is well taken, and I would certainly support one of our staff duty rosters to be an adult out there at that point, also a traffic guard to ensure that children get across the two driveways safely. . What is the grade delineation of junior high students? ih and 8th. . Regarding the site itself, there's a driveway off of Walnut. It looks like the egress drive is very substandard in size and condition. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer responded. Both driveways comply with the standards. Staff would encourage the one driveway to stay a single-drive, which would discourage people from trying to enter through that drive. Staff's opinion is that the driveways do not appear to be substandard in condition. . Regarding the east and south side perimeter wall, has there been any discussion to make improvements to this block wall? Much of the correspondence we've received on this item has been around noise and lack of privacy. As it's written today, is there no thought to enhancing the block wall? As it is not adjacent to the school grounds, staff did not recommend bringing the entire facility in that area up to code. The portion that's adjacent to the school grounds is 6', plus or minus, and is still in repair. . It is difficult to believe that there are not sufficient effects caused by the C.U.P. to warrant an EIR? (Leslie Aranda Roseberry answered this). It is within the power of the Commission, if they disagree with staff's recommendation, to request further environmental analysis. Chris Carnes went on to explain that even though there were certain aspects to this item which would be considered nuisances (traffic, noise, etc.) there was no data to indicate that these would exceed any established thresholds that would require an environmental review. . Has there been any outreach to the community? No there hasn't been any outreach. It is the desire of the school to be considerate of our neighbors, and it is our intent to teach our students this, as well. . What are the setbacks to the rear property line? 100 feet. . It is intriguing that the anticipated use of the school is five years. When a C.U.P. is granted, it stays with the property. The initial lease is for 3 years, with two one- year options. . With other schools we have required a Traffic Management Plan, where the parents of the students would acknowledge that they are aware of their responsibilities. The Commission should recommend a Traffic Management Plan to be a part of this item. 4 A !'-.'p~ 0'" V"~ . 'i",,' d . ',;,0 i"Z ~" _, ',' 'll~ , "'~,,' f; "-, 1>.' li"'V'Lv) Planning Commission August 16, 2004 The public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke to this issue: Steven DeSilva, 1122 E. Sycamore Vivian Cuddihee, 1212 E. Walnut Lavin Cuddihee, 1212 E. Walnut Pamela Tripi, 1123 E. Sycamore Chuck Tripi, 1123 E. Sycamore Ted Cornforth, 1200 E. Walnut Laurie Cornforth, 1200 E. Walnut Mrs. Gary, 1107 E. Sycamore James Gary, 1107 E. Sycamore Tom Turnbaugh, 1117 E. Sycamore Diane Turnbaugh, 1117 E. Sycamore Michael Worcester, 1206 E. Walnut Cynthia Worcester, 1206 E. Walnut Richard Caveche, 1204 E. Walnut Carolyn Caveche, 1204 E. Walnut The public speakers offered the following representative comments and concerns, among several others, about the item, and were opposed to its approval: . Concerned about the effect on traffic. One student was actually hit on Walnut last year going to school. . Most residents in the immediate area are home during the day, with all either sleeping or working from their homes. Noise is already an issue with the existing school that has fewer students. . Groups are there at night, contrary to what the applicant says. . Brochures have already been printed stating this school will start September 9, 2004, and there is no curriculum or schedule to share? . One speaker offered that they had made 34 separate documented contacts with the former preschool over the last few years, which were not effectively resolved or answered by First Christian Church. . Extreme concern for safety of students going to Cambridge Elementary who have to traverse the ingress/egress driveways of the proposed new school. . The new school already has brochures (which have been in existence for many months) and a website. There has been no outreach at all to the surrounding residents or the community. . The church rents out parking spaces to the halfway house across the street. This would diminish their stated number of available parking spaces, and cause further hazards (coming and going) to students in the area. . Speaker cited CEQA guideline #15.300.2.e that states that this meets the requirements where an EIR must be prepared. . Concerned about the southerly wall maintenance. 5 I\. np_ n ,1""\'\ '.1- r 1~.-' f-~' ..r' \''''', I^', .. !:L:.l. .' .hi.. "/la. ',,"1.,,";;; ~! .~..l Planning Commission August 16, 2004 . Major playground equipment and proposed new lunch tables (including an existing basketball court which the applicant stated they did not have) are within 15' in most cases from a nearby resident's wall. . Several serious misrepresentatives in the staff report, including the actual hours of the school. Letter of Justification states that there is no existing use on the weekend or evening. This is definitely not true. The site is used on Wednesday and Friday nights as well as Sunday afternoons and evenings for a barbershop quartet, square dancing club, Korean Church, and others. Emanating from the church is frequent and excessive noise with serious amplification of rock-type music as recently as the day before in excess of one and half hours. . Students are not properly watched, many jump over the walls of the neighbors who are adjacent to the property, taunt the dogs, and stare into the homes. . There is no relationship between the church and the new school; it is merely a financial relationship between the two, at the detriment of the surrounding neighbors and their property values. Also speaking, in favor of the item was: Richard Vogel, 9272 Tritt Circle, Villa Park. He stated that he was speaking as a parent of a student at Covenant Christian School. He stated that he had disagreements regarding closed-door decisions taken by Covenant Christian School. He and other parents have decided to go with this group of educators (who previously were with Covenant) who have done an exemplary job of educating the students. He noted that he goes on all the field trips with the students, and wished to note that these students were exceptionally well behaved. The meeting was recessed for a IS-minute break. Mike Reynolds, 726 N. Bridle Path, Orange. He is the current moderator for the First Christian Church of Orange. He further explained that this title means he is the head of the business side of the church operation. He clarified the difference between the school and church hours of operation. He stated that since the early 1960s the church has rented out the facilities to various groups, with all of these activities ending at 10:00 p.m., staying within the ordinances of the City. He noted that the Code Enforcement people had been out to the property to ensure that they were within compliance. He stated that he has been responsive to any complaints that have been brought forward about activities on the church grounds, and they have tried to work with the groups renting out the facility to keep the noise levels down. He also clarified the issue of the halfway house across the street, noting that the halfway house visitors parked on the street. The church has a handicapped member who had difficulty getting access to the church with the halfway house cars parked on the street. The church offered the halfway house the opportunity to park their cars on the church grounds so they're off the street. He felt this also mitigated the danger to the children walking up and down the street. He mentioned that the church planned to replace the fence on the side of the property going out to Sycamore, as well as repair and remove some of the trees damaged by the winds. The Commissioners had the following comments/concerns for Mr. Reynolds: 6 Planning Commission August 16, 2004 . How long has it been since there were 75 students at the school? It was always hard to get a correct count from Montessori - it was their business on how many people they had enrolled. Their enrollment had been declining over the last few years, and believes they were down to about 20 when they closed their doors. . When the permit was issued in 1975 for the 75 students, was that your school that you operated along with the church? I believe that was the Oak Ridge Christian School and they moved out several years later. . Have you ever had any meetings with your neighbors? No, I've never had a meeting with the neighbors. Normally when they have a problem they come over to the office to tell us. . Why are the neighbors saying that the church is not responsive to them, when you say that you are? How could you have allowed the issue of poor maintenance to continue? No one has even addressed the fact that the play equipment looks in disrepair. Are you saying that without the school that you don't have the money to do the improvements to the fences, the site and to the trees? Specifically, how can it take so long for you to come to terms with your neighbors regarding the block walls that have been down for years? The walls are all shared walls and we'd be happy to meet with the homeowners to discuss repairing the walls. You have people calling you and coming to you that have a problem. Why weren't you, as the church, proactive in seeking them out? Why do we hear tonight that they were coming to you and they were coming up against a stonewall. We've heard throughout the night tonight from the neighbors who have been impacted negatively by the noise from activities happening at the church. You say you've spoken to your renters, but I don't hear that the renters have really heard you. They're in your facility, paying you, and in my opinion you should have been more responsive to keep them from negatively impacting your neighbors. This response was answered by Mark Harper, 18141 Joshua Lane, Santa Ana, CA. He stated that he is the Chair of the Trustees of the First Christian Church of Orange, as well as formerly having responsibility for the businesslfinances of the church. He addressed the delays in repairing the fence. Regarding the deferred maintenance, this new renter will allow the church to replace a large portion of the asphalt that is the playground area. An arborist that has told them that the trees are bad and pose a potential problem, and the church is trying to get those down as soon as possible. He noted that they do not make money off of most of their renters, just enough to cover their costs - citing as example the Boy Scouts, Alcoholics Anonymous, the barbershop quartet, square dancers and other activities within the community that either have no place or cannot afford to rent another place to meet. When it comes to dealing with the neighbors, he said he "takes note." From a timing standpoint they should have gone around, met the neighbors, and held a meeting. Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that after the public comments that were heard at the meeting, that it would serve the project well if they were able to do additional analysis on a couple of the areas that the public has pointed out, which is noise and traffic. This can only be done, she states, if the Planning Commission continues the item, and she believes they would probably need 4-6 weeks to accomplish this. Chairman Pruett stated that the Commission should make a list of issues that need to be addressed by the church prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Smith, citing comments made earlier by Assistant Attorney Gary Sheatz, stated that the Commission could not really suggest what type of 7 Planning Commission August 16, 2004 environmental review should occur on the project, but that she definitely think that the Staff Report, indeed, underestimated the expanded and intensified use of the facility. She stated that she would like to see many more things called out in the C.UP. to mitigate the use for the many residents nearby. Things that she has noted that there needs to be (1) an analysis and a plan for a crossing guard at Walnut Street, (2) what is the ramification of staggered recesses and lunch periods, would it mean that there would be children on the playground all day long, (3) what about after school sports, what sports are they contemplating and what are the timeframes around them and the number of students participating, (4) what about the lineup before class, is that monitored with a bull-horn or a microphone, and are there bells and buzzers that would go off in a typical day throughout the day, (5) what about the use of boom boxes outside, (6) if, indeed, students are to be restricted to certain parts of the school yard during the day that needs to be spelled out in the C.UP., (7) play and lunch areas need to be moved away from the surrounding residences, (8) fencing on the entire property needs to be brought up to code, (9) there is no landscape plan, and (10) the pick-up/drop-offplans needs to be formalized, and parents need to be held accountable to sign that they are aware of the restrictions. Commissioner Smith further stated that she is not comfortable with the C.U.P. allowance of 150 students given the low level of mitigation that exists, and doubling the capacity within the C.UP. within a residential neighborhood is very extreme without a lot of mitigation and safety features built into the plan. Commissioner Domer stated that since the item was going to be continued he would not speak to the merits of the project, but would like to add some conditions and comments for staff to review (mirroring what both Commissioner Brandman and Commissioner Smith had previously stated). He's additionally asked Staff to look at who has financial responsibility (is it shared?) for the repair of the surrounding wall. He would like to recommend that the church try, within the next six weeks, sit down and work out some of the issues and concerns with the neighbors. Commissioner Bonina, stated that he felt that Staff did not have accurate information previously, and have since recognized that there is additional information that is going to be required. He also stated that it was obvious that Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Harper were both business people, and they would be able to frame the use of the property through the lease agreement. As new tenants are added, the issues should be handled through the lease agreement. He further stated that it is important to understand what the current uses at the site are; he did not realize prior to the meeting that there were other uses to the property, which he felt, quite frankly, were rather misleading. He felt that a benefit could be realized to both parties through the meetings with the neighbors. Commissioner Brandman echoed the concerns regarding the southerly wall. Chair Pruett stated to the Commissioners, applicant and public that its important to remember that this is a process, and that sometimes the process may be frustrating, but we do get through it and the additional analysis and dialogue helps everyone. He also stated that he shared the concerns with the other Commissioners, but felt that as we begin to deal with some of the mitigating measures such as noise, there is not the need to manage the business of the school as much. He would prefer to have staff go through some of the issues and conditions as the further analysis takes place. He wanted to stress that the pick-up and drop-off of students was important. Commissioner Brandman moved to continue the meeting until October 4, 2004. It was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. 8 ~~ ~r;;~, u~ ~ tf';., "-1 ~'.'-'" ',' 1:'4...;[ J'l. ji'~~ .tj/ "i/ - ~,'_ Planning Commission August 16, 2004 The public hearing was not closed due to the continuance of the hearing. Chair Pruett reminded the audience, for their benefit, that there would not be any additional notices sent out that this meeting was taking place, so they should note this date on their calendar. Minute Order: Staff look at the original C.U.P. for the church regarding the intensity of use. In addition to the other activities occurring at the church, there are now three churches utilizing the facility. The commission would like staff to address specifically what is allowed under the present Conditional Use Permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED Chair Pruett requested a short five-minute break while the majority ofthe audience departed. (4) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EQUITY PROPERTIES The proposed Development Agreement will extend the approval dates for two projects for up to 15 more years. The projects involve the construction of a 360,000 sq. ft. high-rise office tower and 2,030 space parking structure adjacent to the City Plaza One Office Building (site address 1 City Boulevard West) and a 200,000 sq. ft. office tower and 1,278 space parking structure adjacent to the 605 Office Building (site address 605 S. Lewis Street). NOTE: An addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per state CEQA Guidelines. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, gave the project overview. She stated that there were a number of projects relative to this one that were approved a few years ago. Those approvals are about to expire. One of the new Commissioners had asked for maps to better orient themselves to the property, so she passed out maps to the Commissioners. There was a previous approval to the Chapman Site, it has since been sold by Equity to Best Buy and is not a part of what the applicants are asking for with this Development Agreement. She mentioned the City Tower 2 site (to the south end) which is immediately south of the Doubletree Hotel. Those office entitlements are about to expire in October 2004. Equity is looking at selling that site to a different developer who would come in with a different type of use, so they are not asking (as part of this Development Agreement) to extend those office entitlements. Regarding the City Tower 2 site, inasmuch as Equity is planning to sell this, there is some language in the Development Agreement that if that gets approved for lesser intensity 9 t:~ I,: Planning Commission August 16, 2004 development, and if in the future Equity moves ahead with a plan for either the 605 site or the City Plaza 2 (or a different site in their ownership), that they may be able to transfer some trips that are left from that site. That's subject to a complete new environmental analysis and review of project with something that generates less trips, and there may be trips left on the table that currently belong to Equity and they are reserving their rights at developing something that would capture those trips on another site. Equity is proposing, in terms of the Development Agreement, a 10-year term with as-year extension. Equity provided information in the form of a memo a brief market study looking at the current market for office development, where there is currently not a high demand for this, and certainly not for a mid-rise to high-rise development at the moment. The market has been somewhat depressed, and while this area is doing better than other parts of the region, it is still not ripe for any type of speculative development and there is no potential tenant coming to Equity to build-to-suit on the site. They do expect that it may be 5 to 8 years out before they are ready to build. The building process and lease-up takes a while so they are asking for the ability to, if they are under construction with one of the buildings within 8 years, extend the Development Agreement out for another five years for a total of 15. Staff was supportive of that. Regarding other specifics of the Development Agreement, Ms. Angus stated that in exchange for giving the developer a longer period of time to build on the site (and actually State Law requires them to look for this), the City must look for tangible public benefit to the City that would accrue for this extended development right. This is where the negotiation takes place. In this case Equity provided a letter to the Commissioners from their attorney, detailing the various components that make up that public benefit to the City. In terms of the negotiations, Equity shall provide for a traffic camera, and there is also a provision for the construction aspect to be a point-of-sale. There is a sales tax consultant who works for the City who recommends that it is a viable mechanism whereby with large construction projects the developer can set it up so that the sales tax on the large pieces of the construction materials would accrue to the City. The last major issue in terms of public benefit has to deal with an either/or clause. Equity does have approval power over what goes on in The Mills Development. Originally, Mills and Equity were all under one ownership when it was parceled off, and the owner at the time came up with a number of land use restrictions (basically private ones between the two parties), having to deal with access and parking rights. Also included were approval process rights over each other's developments. While the City did approve The Mills development project earlier this year, The Mills acknowledge and the City acknowledges that Equity does have some approval rights over that development. As a fallback position, in case the development doesn't occur, the City has written in some language that if no agreement is reached between The Mills and Equity by Year 1, then in place of that there are some tangible cash contributions that Equity makes to both of the City's foundations (Community Foundation and Library Foundation). If Year 2 is reached with no agreement, then the cash contributions are again given to the foundations as well as to the City for some ongoing programs. The concept has been agreed upon, but the dollar amounts are still under discussion. In terms of the role that the Planning Commission would play, Ms. Angus stated that the Community Development Department wanted the Commissioners to review the intent of the Development Agreement, and whether it forwards and justifies the land use plan for the area, 10 Planning Commission August 16, 2004 whether or not the term of the agreement (ten to fifteen years) is appropriate from a land use planning perspective. When it gets into the actual dollar amount, she feels that is a bit more of a policy issue and the City Council will be the ultimate authority in terms of making that determination. She feels that there is enough detail in the Development Agreement that Staff feels comfortable in recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this item. The Commissioners had the following questions and concerns: . On 4-06 it does state that if the applicant is not able to reach agreement with The Mills, they would pay a donation to the City's library and park fee. Actually, that language should be Community Foundation and Library Foundation, so I apologize for that. . The Commission commented on how the donation amounts should be substantial to offset any public benefit that would be lost if EOP and The Mills are unable to reach an agreement. . It's pretty broad language "ifthe applicant cannot come to an agreement with The Mills on the development of The Block of Orange". When we last discussed this issue, The Mills project was approximately 800+ parking spaces shy of compliance. Not sure what happened after that. You are inferring that the agreement could take some time, so wondering what the pieces of discussion are? It's actually multi-fold. First of all, Equity has the right of approval or disapproval to development that exceeds a certain square footage. With the residential component proposed at The Block, it is in excess of the building square footage. Also, the residential use is a use that The Mills has to gain approval from Equity to pursue. Then the parking structure that is proposed behind the AMC Theater, they do have the right to review that, as well as all of the developments that abut onto the boundary line of The Mills and Equity. In regards to parking, it is true (not sure of the exact number of additional parking spaces needed) that The Mills needs to gain additional space; those are being sought through Equity or another site. It's not necessarily something that would have to come from Equity in terms of meeting the conditions of approval. Equity has concerns with some of the placements and intensity of uses that are incorporated into The Mills plan. So there are areas that they have requested The Mills to redesign. Those are the types of issues that are currently being dealt with, and all are hopeful that it will come to resolution quickly, realizing that coming to resolution may take a while. . Regarding the "shared parking" it used to be really clear that Equity's use of parking was daytime, and The Block's use was nighttime. But if you go to The Block now, its full during the day as well, especially during the summer and the holidays. The parking structure helps to address the need for the additional parking. In terms of the parking studies that were done as part of the environmental and staff review, The Mills was short in terms of parking required for the existing and future use. They are looking at an additional parking structure, and even with that, there is a need to capture more parking offsite. What is here before us tonight is the Equity development agreement. 11 t:r 7".~ -., 'k "_';,' Planning Commission August 16, 2004 . Were the current entitlements secured with a Development Agreement? No, there was a C. u.P., Major Site Plan Review, and an E.lR. that covered all the projects - this is mentioned in the Staff Report. There already was one extension, and only one extension is allowed. . Has the Development Agreement been approved by counsel for the City as well as Equity? Yes, their attorney and Ted Reynolds have gone over it many times, and both sides agree to all the language contained therein. . If the property is sold, the entitlements go with the sale? Correct. Susan Sagy, Vice President of Development for Equity Office Properties spoke to the Commission. She stated that Equity is very committed to the City of Orange and to growing their portfolio in the City. They are known for being long-term holders of property. They are requesting the Development Agreement so that as market cycles permit, they can be ready to develop the properties. As outlined in the letter to Alice Angus (and attached to the Staff Report), a typical development cycle would be about 3-1/2 years from the start of construction until the property is 95% leased. That includes 18 months to do construction (they are large projects). And then another 24 months beyond what occurred during the pre-leasing. It could take as long as 2 years in a building of this size to complete the leasing after the construction is completed. The direct benefits to the City will include development fees, property taxes and impact mitigation fees. The indirect benefits will come from the sales tax which is generated. The employees that work in the building shop at The Block and eat at The Block, generating more sales tax. Additionally Equity will make an investment of about $112 million in today's dollars in these two buildings. Equity builds first class properties, and they believe it will be a significant benefit to The Block and to the community at large. Commissioner Brandman moved to approve Resolution No. PC 33-04 (as amended on page 3 of the resolution) recommending to the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bonina moved to adjourn the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 8, 2004, and it was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 11 :25 p.m. 12